UK's Beijing medal hopes •


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby dunedine » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:59 pm

I speculate it was off 14 strides as well, at least that's the pattern Holly Bleasdale is currently executing on.

You can see Robbie Grabarz's clearance at 2.29 on the link below, found it today, and there's plenty of daylight between him and the bar. Looks like in some 2.32-2.33 form!

http://athleticsstargate.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/grabarz-nails-world-qualifier-from-the-off/
dunedine
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:46 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby dunedine » Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

Holly Bleasdale won on countback from Vanessa Boslak at 4.52m (4.33o, 4.52xo, 4.62xxx) and U20 Katie Byres was third at 4.33 (xxo) in Clermont Ferrand, France, today with Andrew Sutcliffe bettering a SB of 5.33m in the men - world U20 bronze in Moncton.

Sally Peakke also cleared a Welsh indoor record of 4.33 in Manchester, so things look promising for the event in the early days of 2012.

Jessica Ennis also threw 13.95m in the shot in her first, low-key, appearance up in Sheffield while Andrew Robertson and Laura Turner set UK-leading 6.68 and 7.41 secs in the 60m in Birmingham.

http://athleticsstargate.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/weekend-action-as-it-unfolds-2/
dunedine
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:46 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby John G » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:57 am

Paula is in The Guardian today (see home page link) saying she thinks she can get into 2:18 or even 2:17 shape for the Olympics. I wish I hadn't read that. Speaking as a long time fan of English football and British athletics I can tell you that it isn't the disappointment that kills you .. .. .. ..it's the hope.
John G
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Daisy » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:55 am

John G wrote:Speaking as a long time fan of English football and British athletics I can tell you that it isn't the disappointment that kills you .. .. .. ..it's the hope.

I always thought it was the fear of penalty shoot outs!
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby John G » Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:04 am

Daisy wrote:
John G wrote:Speaking as a long time fan of English football and British athletics I can tell you that it isn't the disappointment that kills you .. .. .. ..it's the hope.

I always thought it was the fear of penalty shoot outs!


No - I've always abandoned all hope by the time it goes to penalties.
John G
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby bushop » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:27 am

Charles van Commennee still focused on eight Olympic track medals
"They won seven medals in Daegu, but were a long way short of having the 15 or so contenders that Van Commenee thinks they need to win those eight. But the team have not missed their target at any major championships, indoor or outdoor, in the last three years."
bushop
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby dunedine » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:55 am

Van Commennee always likes to put up the estimated 'floor' of Britain's medal potential when he sets targets over a major champs publicly. He knows that his team can do better than eight and has got already two more medal shots in his hands - Holly Bleasdale and Robbie Grabarz.
dunedine
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:46 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby dunedine » Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:30 am

Well, how about Joe Thomas emerging as at least a potential finalist for London this summer, he totally destroyed the field and Boaz Lalang yesterday in Glasgow and looks good for a sub 1:45 on the way. His turn of pace was awesome, left everyone for dead.

Mo Farah beat Augustine Choge in his own game in a tactical winding up race in the 1500m and I speculate he's got something in the 3:30 outdoors in the making. He's going to be really tough to beat in London.

Stunning comeback for 'forgotten' girl Asha Philip who beat Jodie Williams twice today in big PBs of 7.30 and 7.24 secs, easily inside the Istanbul qualifier!

Jodie ran 7.31 and 7.33 secs respectively so the battle for the two places on the British team is hotting up.

Also, Andy Pozzi, not 20 yet, got his senior career off to big PBs of 7.66 and 7.67 secs over the hurdles at the Lee Valley yesterday.
dunedine
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:46 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby bushop » Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:41 pm

London 2012 Olympics: UK Athletics head coach Charles van Commenee vows to help unfunded talent on late charge
“If they really perform exceptionally I will find a solution somehow,” van Commenee said. “It doesn’t necessarily have to be warm-weather training or money.
It could be an MRI scan or whatever. I have to be creative.”
bushop
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby preston » Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:59 am

Everyone involved in athletics in the UK, at the administrative level, should be banished to a far away island (well, that's the UK more or less... uhm, ok another far away island) for how few athletes have been developed in the 7 years since the country snookered the games from Paris (can you imagine the pressure Lemaitre would have right now :shock: ). Yes, a few mid-distance types, a few jumps but NOTHING that really says: "Hey! We're about to be the center of the sporting universe...look at what we've done!" The crime, though, is that they have not found a single short sprinter who could be chosen to make a final off of 2007 form. Unforgivable!

The population of the UK is roughly 62 million, but how many events have more than 3 A-qualifiers? Yet, Van Comenee says he will have to find money if a non-lottery athlete makes promise? Hell, he should be combing secondary schools, bars, cast-offs from other sports, etc trying to find those athletes now instead of waiting for them to "show promise".
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 72 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:26 am

So where are the great Yankee sprinters these days, regularly beaten by the the best in a tiny country, not too far away.
310 million citizens and nobody in the States even knows any of the American track and field athletes. Even though you have a great College system which destroys as well as it helps to create athletes who leave college early if they any good.

If the Brits get say 6-8 medals at WCs or OGs the States should on a population comparison should be over 30 medals at least.
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby preston » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:39 am

72 wrote:So where are the great Yankee sprinters these days, regularly beaten by the the best in a tiny country, not too far away.
310 million citizens and nobody in the States even knows any of the American track and field athletes. Even though you have a great College system which destroys as well as it helps to create athletes who leave college early if they any good.

If the Brits get say 6-8 medals at WCs or OGs the States should on a population comparison should be over 30 medals at least.

If the brits get those medals, they may have the US college system to thank for it (you know, those "plastic brits")! Also, winning of medals is basically a lucky lottery ticket for the UK; a proper development program would have produced more depth - which is what all of that money should have been used for.

FYI: The USA is on a 30 medal program that was proposed by their former president, Doug Logan; they're closer to on target than the UK, imo.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby GDAWG » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:00 am

72 wrote:So where are the great Yankee sprinters these days, regularly beaten by the the best in a tiny country, not too far away.
310 million citizens and nobody in the States even knows any of the American track and field athletes. Even though you have a great College system which destroys as well as it helps to create athletes who leave college early if they any good.

If the Brits get say 6-8 medals at WCs or OGs the States should on a population comparison should be over 30 medals at least.


It doesn't help the sport of track and field in the United States if a track athlete (especially one who is a male athlete) also plays another sport. If an American college has a superstar two sport athlete in both track and field and American football, receiving accolades and honors in both sports and he's projected as a future star in either sport as a professional, chances are that he'll drop track and field for American football, especially if he's projected to be a first round draft pick of an NFL team. No way does that athlete pass up projected millions of dollars (plus major exposure if he becomes a big NFL star) for track and field if he's projected to be a big star in the NFL coming out of college.

The only reason Jeff Demps chose track and field was because of his chances of making it in track and field compared to the NFL (which was slim). If Demps was a bit taller and heavier and had a fantastic season at Florida, putting himself into Heisman consideration, there is no doubt he would have chosen to play in the NFL over track and field.
GDAWG
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby dunedine » Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:12 pm

preston wrote:
72 wrote:So where are the great Yankee sprinters these days, regularly beaten by the the best in a tiny country, not too far away.
310 million citizens and nobody in the States even knows any of the American track and field athletes. Even though you have a great College system which destroys as well as it helps to create athletes who leave college early if they any good.

If the Brits get say 6-8 medals at WCs or OGs the States should on a population comparison should be over 30 medals at least.

If the brits get those medals, they may have the US college system to thank for it (you know, those "plastic brits")! Also, winning of medals is basically a lucky lottery ticket for the UK; a proper development program would have produced more depth - which is what all of that money should have been used for.

FYI: The USA is on a 30 medal program that was proposed by their former president, Doug Logan; they're closer to on target than the UK, imo.


Actually, apart from Julian Reid who switched from Jamaica to Britain on the grounds of dual citizenship, which is perfectly acceptable anyway, all the others (Tiffany Porter, Shana Cox, Yamile Aldama, Shara Proctor) have all strong links to Britain and are perfectly eligible to compete - so no 'plastic Brits'...

From there on, Britain won seven individual medals in Daegu none of which came from the American college system.
dunedine
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:46 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby bushop » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:41 pm

It could have been Farah or Ennis but our athletes will be led by a Plastic Brit
By JONATHAN MCEVOY: 17:42 EST, 8 March 2012
"I choose the team captain for her leadership skills and her athletic skills and her credibility, not her ability to memorise words or her vocal skills,’ van Commenee said."
bushop
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby GDAWG » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:23 am

I don't understand the outrage over Porter and Aldama and their nationalities. If Aldama had gone from Cuba to Sudan and then to the United States, wearing the colors of USA Track and Field, nobody outside of USATF would care. Yet she goes from Cuba to Sudan to Britain and there is outrage. I don't recall any outrage from the American media who cover track when Bernard Lagat went from Kenya to the United States. USA Track and Field recently welcomed Barbara Pierre in the fold, and she had represented Haiti at the Beijing Olympics. None of the American reporters who cover track expressed any outrage at the fact that she just started representing the USA at the 2011 Pan American Games after having represented Haiti in Beijing.

If Porter instead had gone with Nigeria (where one of her parents was from), the Nigerian federation and the Nigerian media would have welcomed her with open arms, like they did with Gloria Asumnu. Instead the British rip her because she wasn't born and raised in Britain despite having British citizenship.

And the Nigerian media welcomed Asumnu with open arms, even though she had just defected from the United States.

Is it because Brits care more about track and field than Americans do? Or is it something else?
GDAWG
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:49 am

The Porter bit is ridiculous and seems to hint at British attitudes from its long-past colonial days (from it bad portions where the Japanese were even preferred to the Brits because of their attitudes).

Porter is a Brit, she has had British citizenship since she was born (is that more than Mo, I think...) and has every right to take part in the British Olympic Trials. Unlike the Big O she has not run afoul of the doping regulations either.

Some people seem intent on 'eating their young' in multiple venues...
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby GDAWG » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:58 am

The Porter outrage comes from the fact that she's based in the United States most of the time. Somehow, that doesn't seem to bother other countries who have athletes based in the United States (like Veronica Campbell Brown, Sally Kipyego, Kerron Stewart, Richard Thompson, Kelly Anne Baptiste, Debbie Ferguson McKenzie, Ngonidzashe Makusha, Kirani James, Gloria Asumnu and Blessing Okagbare) and yet if a British athlete does it, there is outrage.
GDAWG
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 72 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:59 am

Reference to outrage is a little too much.The country is not up in arms exactly, but some of the media and a number of individuals are unhappy about the bandwagon that has appeared in time for the London2012.

Clearly, what some posters are not prepared to understand is that, whereas Aldama is one case of an athlete who is a Brit citizen, has lived here for some time , is a club member in the London area and trains young athletes and whose husband is British , the case of Porter is somewhat different; Porter revels in the accident of family , and who loves telling us all how much she misses her country and who lives, trains and socialises in the USA.
Thats what gets up some peoples noses, but at least she is honest enough to admit openly that she is here because she likes the money and the the support she gets here. That support is provided to a considerable extent by the public purse and you posters should understand that the British taxpayer is involved ; our system is not based almost wholly on shoe company money.

Clearly, other countries don't bother about such issues,especially if a few medals are the likely result; I do seem to recall the distaste of some here about the Kenyans rushing to the middle east, cos they could not get into the Kenyan team or lots of money was available from the UAE; even the Kenyan steeplechasers fraternity were a bit miffed in 2003 ,I recall !!

Making Porter the captain this w/e was a deliberate attempt by the National coach to give two fingers to the media etc , a most inappropriate choice by him on what is a sensitive issue to many people .

Had it not been for the OG in 2012 some of these "British" athletes would not be around.

Ckearly our cultural attitudes are different to the USA but, hey, thats free speech, I suppose.
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Speedster » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:08 am

It's all about sensationalist headlines, nothing more. Porter and Aldama deserve their GB vests, there are criteria in place and they meet them. End of story.

Aldama's story is tragic and it's great to see her get a world title to reflect her talent. Porter made a wise decision in choosing Team GB as she could skip the US trials to get to majors, though given her recent performances at majors, she might have made the US team anyway.

Which brings me to Pierre, why would someone choose to compete for the USA then making teams so tough?
Speedster
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: London

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby GDAWG » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:27 am

Speedster wrote:It's all about sensationalist headlines, nothing more. Porter and Aldama deserve their GB vests, there are criteria in place and they meet them. End of story.

Aldama's story is tragic and it's great to see her get a world title to reflect her talent. Porter made a wise decision in choosing Team GB as she could skip the US trials to get to majors, though given her recent performances at majors, she might have made the US team anyway.

Which brings me to Pierre, why would someone choose to compete for the USA then making teams so tough?


With Pierre I don't know why she chose to represent the United States with the United States deep in the Women's 100 and 200. Carmelita Jeter, Shalonda Solomon, Marshevet Myers, Allyson Felix and Bianca Knight are all ahead of her. Muna Lee could be as well if she returns to health. There's also Tianna Madison, although I think she may concentrate on the long jump and try to see if she can dethrone Brittney Reese. Pierre though could surprise, like Miki Barber did last year. Plus if she finishes in the top 6 in the finals, she could be in the relay pool.
GDAWG
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Flumpy » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:54 am

72 wrote:The case of Porter is somewhat different; Porter revels in the accident of family , and who loves telling us all how much she misses her country and who lives, trains and socialises in the USA.Thats what gets up some peoples noses, but at least she is honest enough to admit openly that she is here because she likes the money and the the support she gets here.


Whilst agree with all of this and don't really think she does herself any favours, she legitimately has a UK passport and has every right to compete for us, however much her heart may be in the US.

People don't have to like it but what exactly is it that The Mail is complaining about? What is there solution??? There is no doubt that had she been white there would be no issue at all.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby mump boy » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:14 pm

There is no outrage in the UK, there is just one right wing reactionary paper making a lot of noise.

If she had been white the Daily Mail would have been moving heaven adn earth to get her a passport

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm


Six weeks ago Frank Budd applied for a British passport. On Friday, March 23, Zola and her parents drove to Jan Smuts international airport in Johannesburg. Their passage to England had been arranged by London's Daily Mail, which has a circulation of two million. The Budds were escorted to an empty VIP lounge in the airport to await KLM flight 594 to Nairobi and Amsterdam. Ten minutes before their 747 was scheduled to depart, a black Mercedes carried the three Budds to the loading ramp for the 11½-hour flight to Amsterdam. There they were met by a small private plane and were flown to Southampton. Since then, the Daily Mail, which has exclusive rights to Zola Budd's personal story, has kept the family under wraps. Last Friday, Labuschagne joined the Budds in England. At once the world weighed in. The Daily Express, the Mail's closest rival, ran a banner headline on page one screeching ZOLA GO HOME!, justifying it with comments from two British women middle-distance runners to the effect that the importation of a competitor for a place on the British Olympic team was unfair. Other stories speculated that the International Management Group, a Cleveland-based agency headed by Mark McCormack, was behind the flight from South Africa and was intent on staging a series of lucrative head-to-head races between Budd and its client Decker. Lending some substance to this theorizing, Hughes Norton of IMG admitted Sunday that his organization was in daily contact with the Budds, although the ferrets of Fleet Street had yet to discover where the Daily Mail had hidden the family.


Tiffany Porter has a UK passport and is therefore a uk citizen, how can UKA not select her ?? :?

It is not up to the tabloid press to decide who qualifies and they also don't have a monopoly on patriotism, or the definition of britishness.

Times they are a changing whether they like it or not
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Speedster » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:01 pm

GDAWG wrote:With Pierre I don't know why she chose to represent the United States with the United States deep in the Women's 100 and 200. Carmelita Jeter, Shalonda Solomon, Marshevet Myers, Allyson Felix and Bianca Knight are all ahead of her. Muna Lee could be as well if she returns to health. There's also Tianna Madison, although I think she may concentrate on the long jump and try to see if she can dethrone Brittney Reese. Pierre though could surprise, like Miki Barber did last year. Plus if she finishes in the top 6 in the finals, she could be in the relay pool.


7.0 means Pierre could get down to 11.0 which is probably enough to make the London final but won't be quick enough to get a spot on the US team. It makes no sense. Are there better sponsorship opportunities being a US athlete versus competing for Haiti?
Speedster
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: London

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby peach77 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:04 am

I'm darned sure I wrote about this last night but for some reason it didn't post and now Mump's beaten me to it. The whole "issue" surrounds The Daily Mail, which is basically the UK's right-wing, conservative paper that runs stories daily about how much money immigrants get, how gays shouldn't be allowed to get married and how the EU controls Britain like a puppet. It's notorious for the opinions of its columnists and has had serious raps on the knuckles for their "opinions", such as when they claimed, about 2 days after his death, that an openly gay singer had died in his 20s because of the gay lifestyle he led (insinuating sordid sex orgies and drugs) when it was, in fact, because of a rare heart defect.

It's utter nonsense and I cannot believe how much the issue has been covered by the likes of Channel 4- the paper is, at best, a "comic" and a complete joke to anyone with any sense. Let's be fair about it, this is the same paper that were responsible for bringing Zola Budd to the UK back in the 80s- hypocritical isn't really in their language. Everyone needs to move on and be very proud we have athletes who, lest we forget, have CHOSEN to represent Britain because they WANT to, who are winning major medals...
peach77
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:26 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby t_monk » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:58 pm

GDAWG wrote:
Speedster wrote:It's all about sensationalist headlines, nothing more. Porter and Aldama deserve their GB vests, there are criteria in place and they meet them. End of story.

Aldama's story is tragic and it's great to see her get a world title to reflect her talent. Porter made a wise decision in choosing Team GB as she could skip the US trials to get to majors, though given her recent performances at majors, she might have made the US team anyway.

Which brings me to Pierre, why would someone choose to compete for the USA then making teams so tough?


With Pierre I don't know why she chose to represent the United States with the United States deep in the Women's 100 and 200. Carmelita Jeter, Shalonda Solomon, Marshevet Myers, Allyson Felix and Bianca Knight are all ahead of her. Muna Lee could be as well if she returns to health. There's also Tianna Madison, although I think she may concentrate on the long jump and try to see if she can dethrone Brittney Reese. Pierre though could surprise, like Miki Barber did last year. Plus if she finishes in the top 6 in the finals, she could be in the relay pool.


I say Pierre doesn't even make the relay pool >_<
t_monk
 
Posts: 4334
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby preston » Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:40 am

Speedster wrote:7.0 means Pierre could get down to 11.0 which is probably enough to make the London final but won't be quick enough to get a spot on the US team. It makes no sense. Are there better sponsorship opportunities being a US athlete versus competing for Haiti?

Outside of Jeter and Hooker every other American woman sprinter might as well be wearing the same bib number...they're all the same, so I disagree that Pierre won't be quick enough to make the team (Remember, even Muna Lee has only run under 11 in one season, 2008, and she only did it twice with 10.97 being the second best time). But, the reason for Pierre to choose the USA over Haiti probably has to do with something else: identity. Though she was born in the Haiti I can see it being somewhat of an insecurity complex of sorts to some degree, especially if she's spent the lion-share of her life in the US. It's not lost on her how difficult it is to make an American team, but she might just FEEL American. And they're unlikely to call her "plastic" American like they didn't for Jennifer Innis, Sandra Farmer-Patrick, Sanya Richards, Kerron Clement, Debbie Dunn...(though it seemed a bit different for Sydney Maree and Magdalena Lewy-Boulet, though a little less so in Lewy-Boulet's case)
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby t_monk » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:56 pm

preston wrote:
Speedster wrote:7.0 means Pierre could get down to 11.0 which is probably enough to make the London final but won't be quick enough to get a spot on the US team. It makes no sense. Are there better sponsorship opportunities being a US athlete versus competing for Haiti?

Outside of Jeter and Hooker every other American woman sprinter might as well be wearing the same bib number...they're all the same, so I disagree that Pierre won't be quick enough to make the team (Remember, even Muna Lee has only run under 11 in one season, 2008, and she only did it twice with 10.97 being the second best time). But, the reason for Pierre to choose the USA over Haiti probably has to do with something else: identity. Though she was born in the Haiti I can see it being somewhat of an insecurity complex of sorts to some degree, especially if she's spent the lion-share of her life in the US. It's not lost on her how difficult it is to make an American team, but she might just FEEL American. And they're unlikely to call her "plastic" American like they didn't for Jennifer Innis, Sandra Farmer-Patrick, Sanya Richards, Kerron Clement, Debbie Dunn...(though it seemed a bit different for Sydney Maree and Magdalena Lewy-Boulet, though a little less so in Lewy-Boulet's case)


She actually chose Haiti and then reverted from Haiti to the US... She even competed at the Olympics in 2008 for Haiti... So why choose Haiti in the first place if she was going to switch back?

And I don't think she is remotely a consistent or going to be a consistent 11.0x runner. Her fastest time to date in the 100 is an 11.14... in Clermont.... in +2.0w >_< I would think that Alexandria Anderson, Jeneba Tarmoh, Lauryn Williams, Miki Barber, Muna Lee, Solomon and even Moore would be more likely to make the team than her.
t_monk
 
Posts: 4334
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby bushop » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:07 am

'Plastic Brits' are fantastic, claims triple jumper Edwards
"The triple jump world record-holder said he has 'no problem' with any of the athletes who have transferred their allegiance to Great Britain since London was awarded the Games and even branded some coverage of the issue 'disgusting'."
bushop
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby preston » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:36 am

t_monk wrote:She actually chose Haiti and then reverted from Haiti to the US... She even competed at the Olympics in 2008 for Haiti... So why choose Haiti in the first place if she was going to switch back?

And I don't think she is remotely a consistent or going to be a consistent 11.0x runner. Her fastest time to date in the 100 is an 11.14... in Clermont.... in +2.0w >_< I would think that Alexandria Anderson, Jeneba Tarmoh, Lauryn Williams, Miki Barber, Muna Lee, Solomon and even Moore would be more likely to make the team than her.

I can't say why she chose, but maybe the first time was because she knew that it was the only way she could go to the Olympics. But, after having competed for Haiti and recognizing the difference in organization/benefits, etc. felt more desirous of being branded "American". Again, is this not exactly what Sandra Farmer-Patrick did? She ran for Jamaica at the '87 World Champs and then tried to compete for the USA in '88 (it just so happened that she was the best "American").

I never said that you have to be consistent that's why I purposely referenced Hill - you only have to be top 3 on one day in the USA trials system. But, based upon history, none of the women that you have named above fit the criteria, either. And, when considering Pierre, her indoor times are an indicator of 11.0x, which for the time being (because it's early), puts her ahead of her competition - and this is important, on pace. I'd say the same for Madison. One more thing, of the women you mentioned only WIlliams has run under 10 more than twice, or in more than one season. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see a return to form by Williams It wouldn't shock me if none of these women ran sub-10, which would be sad because Alex Anderson sure looks like (on paper) she could be an absolute STAR!! (Solomons singular time under 11 also took place at the Clermont track; Tarmoh needs a lot of work and Barber is a "more veteran" version of Pierre and Madison)
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby t_monk » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:14 pm

preston wrote:
t_monk wrote:She actually chose Haiti and then reverted from Haiti to the US... She even competed at the Olympics in 2008 for Haiti... So why choose Haiti in the first place if she was going to switch back?

And I don't think she is remotely a consistent or going to be a consistent 11.0x runner. Her fastest time to date in the 100 is an 11.14... in Clermont.... in +2.0w >_< I would think that Alexandria Anderson, Jeneba Tarmoh, Lauryn Williams, Miki Barber, Muna Lee, Solomon and even Moore would be more likely to make the team than her.

I can't say why she chose, but maybe the first time was because she knew that it was the only way she could go to the Olympics. But, after having competed for Haiti and recognizing the difference in organization/benefits, etc. felt more desirous of being branded "American". Again, is this not exactly what Sandra Farmer-Patrick did? She ran for Jamaica at the '87 World Champs and then tried to compete for the USA in '88 (it just so happened that she was the best "American").

I never said that you have to be consistent that's why I purposely referenced Hill - you only have to be top 3 on one day in the USA trials system. But, based upon history, none of the women that you have named above fit the criteria, either. And, when considering Pierre, her indoor times are an indicator of 11.0x, which for the time being (because it's early), puts her ahead of her competition - and this is important, on pace. I'd say the same for Madison. One more thing, of the women you mentioned only WIlliams has run under 10 more than twice, or in more than one season. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see a return to form by Williams It wouldn't shock me if none of these women ran sub-10, which would be sad because Alex Anderson sure looks like (on paper) she could be an absolute STAR!! (Solomons singular time under 11 also took place at the Clermont track; Tarmoh needs a lot of work and Barber is a "more veteran" version of Pierre and Madison)


Makes sense! I would guess it had something to do with the earthquake maybe and the support from the state maybe. All in all though I don't think it was a very good idea for her because I honestly doubt she will make the US team in any capacity. If we looking at a relay situation I find it hard to think they will deviate far from their 2011 team. So the only change that can potentially be made there IMHO is Knight on the first leg. In the 100 I would say Jeter, Myers, Lee/Anderson/Williams/Tarmoh. In the 200m Felix with Jeter, Solomon, Knight, Lee or one of the collegiates
t_monk
 
Posts: 4334
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Flumpy » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:40 pm



Typically classy response from a Daily Mail reader.

"How about this has been just shutting up! Who wants his opinion on anything? probably been told what to say by his boyfriend anyway.
- SirMikeTheRight, in a once Christian England, 16/3/2012 13:57
"
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Speedster » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:29 pm

t_monk wrote:Makes sense! I would guess it had something to do with the earthquake maybe and the support from the state maybe. All in all though I don't think it was a very good idea for her because I honestly doubt she will make the US team in any capacity. If we looking at a relay situation I find it hard to think they will deviate far from their 2011 team. So the only change that can potentially be made there IMHO is Knight on the first leg. In the 100 I would say Jeter, Myers, Lee/Anderson/Williams/Tarmoh. In the 200m Felix with Jeter, Solomon, Knight, Lee or one of the collegiates


I hope that LSU allow Kimberlyn Duncan the chance to run at the Trial this year again. I really think she's a future star and could make the 200m team. She has 11.09/22.24 PBs at 21 and she's got nice relaxed technique, reminds me of a young Merlene Ottey.
Speedster
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: London

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Daisy » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:59 pm

Flumpy wrote:Typically classy response from a Daily Mail reader.

I don't even understand the comment.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby NotSoOrdinary » Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:44 am

As far as sprints go I'd say maybe the women's 4x400m. Their running order is going to be essential and they've got to get it right in order to medal. The U.S is undoubtedly taking gold though.

I can't really see it for any other sprinting event on either side, tbh.
NotSoOrdinary
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:38 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby t_monk » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:04 am

NotSoOrdinary wrote:As far as sprints go I'd say maybe the women's 4x400m. Their running order is going to be essential and they've got to get it right in order to medal. The U.S is undoubtedly taking gold though.

I can't really see it for any other sprinting event on either side, tbh.


The US, Jamaica and Russia are a lock to me in the 4x400m W. They can stake an attempt at the 4x400m M and the 4x100m M/W (because chances are someone will drop the baton).

100 - No
200 - No
400 - Possible in the female
800 - No
LJ - No
TJ - Idowu
100mH - Porter
110mH - No
t_monk
 
Posts: 4334
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby NotSoOrdinary » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:46 am

t_monk wrote:
NotSoOrdinary wrote:As far as sprints go I'd say maybe the women's 4x400m. Their running order is going to be essential and they've got to get it right in order to medal. The U.S is undoubtedly taking gold though.

I can't really see it for any other sprinting event on either side, tbh.


The US, Jamaica and Russia are a lock to me in the 4x400m W. They can stake an attempt at the 4x400m M and the 4x100m M/W (because chances are someone will drop the baton).

100 - No
200 - No
400 - Possible in the female
800 - No
LJ - No
TJ - Idowu
100mH - Porter
110mH - No


If I may ask t_monk, exactly who do you think will be coming out on top this year iin the W4X4? Going for Russia for the 3rd time? :D
NotSoOrdinary
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:38 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby t_monk » Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:02 am

NotSoOrdinary wrote:
t_monk wrote:
NotSoOrdinary wrote:As far as sprints go I'd say maybe the women's 4x400m. Their running order is going to be essential and they've got to get it right in order to medal. The U.S is undoubtedly taking gold though.

I can't really see it for any other sprinting event on either side, tbh.


The US, Jamaica and Russia are a lock to me in the 4x400m W. They can stake an attempt at the 4x400m M and the 4x100m M/W (because chances are someone will drop the baton).

100 - No
200 - No
400 - Possible in the female
800 - No
LJ - No
TJ - Idowu
100mH - Porter
110mH - No


If I may ask t_monk, exactly who do you think will be coming out on top this year iin the W4X4? Going for Russia for the 3rd time? :D

lol....

Quite frankly.... as much as it pains me to admit... I have to go with the US.

SRR, Felix, McCorory, Hastings, Beard, Dunn... I'm sorry... Unless something serious happens I see no reason why they shouldn't win.
t_monk
 
Posts: 4334
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby mump boy » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:49 pm

It has been proved time and time again that even with an inferior (on paper) team the US will win the 4x4w, they are quite simply better relay runners.

RUS and JAM have also time after time under performed in the 4x4, i think UK are very much in the mix on home ground and especially now that TBO seems to have grasped the importance of the relay. She was crying after the race and CVC has made a point of praising her as one of the performances of the meet in Istanbul. UK have the possibility of 3 runners who can run sub 50 in the team and none of them being the reigning olympic champion :)

Of course we say the same thing every year but there has definitely been a change in attitude this year and we have amazing last leg runners so i am cautiously optimistic :?
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby NotSoOrdinary » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:31 pm

mump boy wrote:It has been proved time and time again that even with an inferior (on paper) team the US will win the 4x4w, they are quite simply better relay runners.

RUS and JAM have also time after time under performed in the 4x4, i think UK are very much in the mix on home ground and especially now that TBO seems to have grasped the importance of the relay. She was crying after the race and CVC has made a point of praising her as one of the performances of the meet in Istanbul. UK have the possibility of 3 runners who can run sub 50 in the team and none of them being the reigning olympic champion

Of course we say the same thing every year but there has definitely been a change in attitude this year and we have amazing last leg runners so i am cautiously optimistic :?


Ahh, t_monk has finally spilled the true tea. :shock: *Clap Clap* :D
NotSoOrdinary
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:38 pm

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests