I am the IAAF representative from San Marino and this idea stinks. There is less chance of our athlete progressing from the preliminary rounds under this new rule. You can count on me voting against this.
I think that the year after the Olympics is should be the OG champ, not the WC champ from two years before. The rationale is that they want the marque players in; that certainly argues for being more recent and taking the one with the bigger prize in a marque sense.
26mi235 wrote:I think that the year after the Olympics is should be the OG champ, not the WC champ from two years before.
That'll be tough break for a guy like Si Kuan Wong, should he win worlds this year but then of course isn't allowed to compete at the Olympics next year.
Beyond an occasional USAian, Kenyan and (maybe) Russian (HJer), how many is this really gonna add into the mix?
As Daisy has pointed out (and GH multiple times before), this looks like the "big countries getting more" to most delegates (e.g. 5 Kenyans in MSteeple, USAians in M400mH, Ruskis in MHJ), as for even the small countries with wildcards they are unlikely to have more folks to bring along as extras (e.g. Australia doesn't have 4 female discus throwers or 4 male pole vaulters to bring... indeed, not even one more...likewise NZ with female SPers, Sth Africa with 800m runners etc).
Another 'pro' argument would be that the wildcards wouldn't need to chase qualifying marks, but that holds very little merit...we want/need them to be in shape...
If the reigning Olympic Champion isn't good enough to qualify by right why would anyone want to ensure their participation with a wild card.
As is mentioned above there are only about 3 countries in the world that this would benefit and if they have 3 people better qualified to compete then so be it.
Perhaps every continental champion could get an automatic place? In principle I'm not against reigning Olympic and World Champions being invited though. They've earned it.
I agree that it's only a few countries this would actually benefit. But being the 4th ranked Russian HJer, 4th ranked American sprinter or, hell, 8th ranked Kenyan steeplechaser must be very tough, especially when the public is so against transferring nationality. What do you do? Accept that you might never reach a major championships and live on the circuit, beating lesser athletes who get to get to the final at a majors?
I don't see an issue with introducing some sort of quota, where bigger countries (population...or with many in the top 100) perhaps get to send an extra athlete. Otherwise a system where the worlds top 10 or top 20 in each event get to go, regardless of nationality. The bigger nations could still be given a higher quote (say, 5) but this is included in the top 20 invites eg, if the US has 4 in the top 20 they can select another, but if they have 7 in the top 20 that's it, they can't select anymore, they stick with that 7.
Daisy wrote:I am the IAAF representative from Singapore, this idea stinks.
Daisy wrote:I am the IAAF representative from San Marino and this idea stinks. There is less chance of our athlete progressing from the preliminary rounds under this new rule. You can count on me voting against this.
I am a track fan and both your track teams stink, even worst your attention given to track stinks, as a matter of fact your voting rights should be taken away. I think both your votes should be given to the fans.
I, however, like your Badminton and Squash programmes, you give them lots of support.
gruber wrote:It will be simplier if USA change their rules of qualifications and not the world to change just to please few americans. And it will be in vain as always someone will miss And actually I’m not sure if having a lot of representatives from the same country in the same event is a good for the event. It’s so hard from steeplers outside Kenia to exist and to be motivated. You add another Kenian in WC and it’s the death of the steeples in 20 more
That's silly! This "rule" doesn't just affect Americans! It affects ALL of the countries that actually spend time developing athletes - something that the San Marino's, Tuvulu and Equitorial Guinea's of the world CAN'T say. Jamaica will leave sprinters, Bahamas will leave sprinters, Russia will leave all manner of throwers, jumpers, distance and sprinters, Finland will leave Javeliners, Cuba will leave triple jumpers... why? So some 30+ y/o San Marino clown can run 11.80 in the 100m? It's the F****** Olympics*! If the best in your country can only run 11.80 then you probably shouldn't have a country.
*made up example; real example is the NR for Tuvulu in Beijing 100m ... 11.45 (-1.3). And, he was a junior. Countries should NOT be able to use the Olympics or World Championships for development meets.
Such a proposal, methinks, is suprisingly time-dependent. As in, for Berlin '09 it would have been a very good selling point for the IAAF/LOC to be able to "guarantee" that virtually every Beijing winner was there. Other than few retirees.
But now, 3 years later, in a sporting world that moves very quickly, any Beijing champion who isn't going to be on his nation's team anyway, is more likely than not not particularly worthy of getting a free pass, and isn't likely to be much of a selling point to the public.
(I could easily be proved wrong if somebody wants to crossmatch the original list against who will and won't be there, of course. Among actives, that is)
But it's not a wild card. They are considered to have achieved the A standard even if they haven't, but they still have to be selected by their national feds, and they don't increase the quota of participants per country.
gh wrote:Such a proposal, methinks, is suprisingly time-dependent. As in, for Berlin '09 it would have been a very good selling point for the IAAF/LOC to be able to "guarantee" that virtually every Beijing winner was there. Other than few retirees.
But now, 3 years later, in a sporting world that moves very quickly, any Beijing champion who isn't going to be on his nation's team anyway, is more likely than not not particularly worthy of getting a free pass, and isn't likely to be much of a selling point to the public.
(I could easily be proved wrong if somebody wants to crossmatch the original list against who will and won't be there, of course. Among actives, that is)
Again, I think that for the WC that follows the OGs, they should use the OG champ, not the WC champ from two years earlier. I doubt that any of the little countries would care much about that difference and it brings, in general, a higher profile.
Daisy wrote:I am the IAAF representative from Singapore, this idea stinks.
Daisy wrote:I am the IAAF representative from San Marino and this idea stinks. There is less chance of our athlete progressing from the preliminary rounds under this new rule. You can count on me voting against this.
I am a track fan and both your track teams stink, even worst your attention given to track stinks, as a matter of fact your voting rights should be taken away. I think both your votes should be given to the fans.
gh wrote:Such a proposal, methinks, is suprisingly time-dependent. As in, for Berlin '09 it would have been a very good selling point for the IAAF/LOC to be able to "guarantee" that virtually every Beijing winner was there. Other than few retirees.
But now, 3 years later, in a sporting world that moves very quickly, any Beijing champion who isn't going to be on his nation's team anyway, is more likely than not not particularly worthy of getting a free pass, and isn't likely to be much of a selling point to the public.
(I could easily be proved wrong if somebody wants to crossmatch the original list against who will and won't be there, of course. Among actives, that is)
bushop's list at the start is a good guide and the majority of those athletes are still active and in decent form. Most elite athletes careers span at least two Olympic Games and most athletes have a few seasons at a similar level (though of course we do get one season wonders) But the point is they should still reach at least the B qualifier mark anyway.
It is a selling point to me and I just have to think back to the women's 100m in Seoul where we saw the 1980 100m Olympic champion (Kondrateyeva), the 1984 100m Olympic champion (Ashford) the 1983 100m world chmapion (Gohr...also '86 Euro champ) and the 1987 World Champion (Gladisch-Moller) all in good form. Add to that the 1982 Commonwealth Games champion (Issajenko) the 100m WR holder (Griffith-Joyner) the 200m WR holder (Drechsler) and the world indoor champion over 60m (Cooman) and we saw 8 women with gold medals and records battling for a place in the Olympic final. Superb!!
gruber wrote:And actually I’m not sure if having a lot of representatives from the same country in the same event is a good for the event. It’s so hard from steeplers outside Kenia to exist and to be motivated. You add another Kenian in WC and it’s the death of the steeples in 20 more countries
This is the first argument I've read that makes sense on why we can't have expanded entries from a single country. I used to want ALL the best in the world there and if that meant 10 Kenya steeplers and a lock on the 5 and 10K from East African nations, so be it. But it would be a HUGE demotivator for up-and-comers around the world to do all the hard training necessary, if they thought their chances went from slim (4 Kenyans in the Steeple) to none (10 Kenyans in the Steeple). T&F NEEDS people from all over trying to be the best.
They are many events where the wealth is spread around the globe, and then there's others with a very small list of nations who can compete for Finals' berths.
So my new wish is that all current OG and WC medalists get byes, but that's it.
7-sided wrote:So some 30+ y/o San Marino clown can run 11.80 in the 100m? It's the F****** Olympics*! If the best in your country can only run 11.80 then you probably shouldn't have a country.
I actually prefer such country where people are wealthy or intelligent or live in egalitarian society so they don’t need to make sport in very high level (something very unnatural and unhealthy and often mind-numbing, and used more and more for Nationalist Propaganda) and run under 10 (which is also unnatural) as this is the only way to be accepted and have rights and considerations when you’re part of some minority
RIDICULOUS, arrogant and damned elitist! So wealthy, intelligent people from egalitarian countries should be allowed to pollute the competition venues with sub-standard performances because sport is "unnatural and unhealthy and often mind-numbing...and run under 10 (which is unnatural)"? Sarcasm aside we're talking about a person (shudder to call him athlete) who can't run under 11. If that's not celabrating abject failure, then nothing is.
But suppose we used...I don't know... France. Egalite? Check. Hell, it's part of the national motto or something or other. Wealthy? Check. One of the richest countries in the world. Intelligent? We can debate that but I'm gonna say yes for Notre Dame, The Louvre, and Cro-magnon man. Have athletes who unnaturally run under 10 because it is "the only way to be accepted and have rights and considerations when you're part of some minority". (must really suck to be a white guy in France )
gruber wrote:I actually prefer such country where people are wealthy or intelligent or live in egalitarian society so they don’t need to make sport in very high level (something very unnatural and unhealthy and often mind-numbing, and used more and more for Nationalist Propaganda) and run under 10 (which is also unnatural) as this is the only way to be accepted and have rights and considerations when you’re part of some minority
This has got to be the weirdest post since MattMarriott left the building!!!
gruber wrote:I actually prefer such country where people are wealthy or intelligent or live in egalitarian society
I know of countries, where some people are wealthy - far from all. Yes, some people are intelligent in all countries - some, mind you. Egalitarian society? Never heard of one. Even Thomas More's Utopia had exclusions, right?
bushop wrote:What do you think about expanding the 'wildcard' entry into the World Championships to include the last Olympic Champion? - Olympic champion (2008) • World champion (2009) women men
Who are the retirees or also-rans? I can note them on the original list.
Why not go all the way that the IOC is heading and just let folks buy their way, for 1 million US Dollars, say, into the Olympics. If Americans think Tyson Gay belongs then we could ante up and buy him a lane. If some rich guy wants to run or maybe a ringer for himself, then so be it.
If Nike wants to buy a bunch of spots, great.
If baseball wants to get back into it, fine. Buy a team, at 1 million a player. Buy all the players you want....
Just think if some town has a local hotshot. Well what to do? Have a bake sale and buy that fellow a spot.
The UK thinks Paula belongs in the Olympics? Well that shouldn't be too hard to come up with the dough.
I cannot think of one good reason but certainly bad ones for including the principle of wild cards entry just because you were a Champion in the previous WC/Olympic Games. Athletes are professionals and get their financial rewards directly and indirectly for their winning performances in the WC.
Those wanting 'only the best' might not like this, but I think that if they do so, they should limit a country to four entries, although it will not arise too often where a country has winners in both and they are not the same. Interesting that all of the cases involved barriers: 400h, 3000SC, decathlon and HJ. (and all men)
Thanks for the illustrated list.
Of course, the reason is marketing by the IAAF; they want their big names in.
PAN
)
