If the International Olympic Committee want the Games to be genuinely about the best athletes in the world, then surely they should offer some extra wildcards for nations who are exceptionally strong in certain events.
Yes, the Olympics should be about involving the entire world, but competing in the greatest show on earth should be about individual ability, not geography.
So, we have here the writer who has been railing against "plastic brits" saying the Games should be about the best athletes? If his thesis for his column is great games equals best athletes and best athletes means no (less) flags, then no flags means considerably fewer Brits. So for the best Games there should be less Brits. Perfect.
Perhaps the wild card entries for worlds might be better for the most recent world or Olympics, so a 2013 Worlds has the 2012 Olympians with the wild cards and not the 2011 worlds winners. That would be more relevant than allowing Olympians from possibly 3 years ago auto qualifiers.
Free rides for Olympic champions? Neil Wilson April 4th 2012 "Would it not lend a little romance to the Games if the last Olympic champion of each event who is still active four years later was to be given the opportunity to try again. More pertinently, perhaps, would it not be better for the champion to be challenged and, perhaps, beaten by the next generation in the Olympic pool."
you're selectively quoting Wilson there. Note that he subsequently says
<<And just as it was wrong for Coe, so it would be for the likes of Bernard, Trickett and Ma Lin. Tens of thousands work half their young lives to achieve an ambition to be an Olympian. To give anybody a freer ride to a place, even an Olympic champion, would be to devalue the effort.>>
gh wrote:you're selectively quoting Wilson there. Note that he subsequently says <<And just as it was wrong for Coe, so it would be for the likes of Bernard, Trickett and Ma Lin. Tens of thousands work half their young lives to achieve an ambition to be an Olympian. To give anybody a freer ride to a place, even an Olympic champion, would be to devalue the effort.>>
For sure... I don't like to give away the ending. I usually try to share a quote that will encourage a click through from this site, not to make a point. Did (do) I err?
possible deeper relay pools for Jam and USA ? Don't really like it. Why don't we use the other even year, between WC's, to play around with these kinds of formats? Like a mini WC with smaller fields...tinker a bit
wildcard to the top 8 of the ranking for each event only 3 for federation in finals (or semi-finals where there are more rounds)
there is a similar rule in swimming (euro championship), every federation can enter 4 swimmers but only the top 2 may proceed to semi-finals or finals..
Track & FIeld News - June 2012 wrote:... winners of the 32 Samsung Diamond League events this year will be accorded wild-card status for the 2013 World Championships.
If a nation has both a DL winner and a WC defender in an event, it will have to choose, as the total remains capped at 4.
tandfman wrote:I'd be very surprised if the IOC would accept a wildcard fourth entry (let alone even more) from a country in any track and field event.
what he said.... we've been down this road repeatedly: the IOC is doing everything possible to LIMIT the number of people in the meet. Why do you think track now gets only 16 nations in each relay event?
The only way the IOC would accept a system that adds people to the meet would be for the IAAF to come up with a counter-proposal that would eliminate as many in another way. Like kicking out an event. Be careful what you wish for.
Gotta remember that the IAAF is just a rider on the IOC's bus here.
Keep counting your blessings that unlike swimming we aren't limited to two per event. That was certainly on the IOC's radar at one point.
tandfman wrote:I'd be very surprised if the IOC would accept a wildcard fourth entry (let alone even more) from a country in any track and field event.
what he said.... we've been down this road repeatedly: the IOC is doing everything possible to LIMIT the number of people in the meet. Why do you think track now gets only 16 nations in each relay event?
The only way the IOC would accept a system that adds people to the meet would be for the IAAF to come up with a counter-proposal that would eliminate as many in another way. Like kicking out an event. Be careful what you wish for.
Gotta remember that the IAAF is just a rider on the IOC's bus here.
Keep counting your blessings that unlike swimming we aren't limited to two per event. That was certainly on the IOC's radar at one point.
But will the IAAF ever allow the other way... Olympic gold medalist to the next WC?
Track & FIeld News - June 2012 wrote:... winners of the 32 Samsung Diamond League events this year will be accorded wild-card status for the 2013 World Championships.
If a nation has both a DL winner and a WC defender in an event, it will have to choose, as the total remains capped at 4.
That's interesting, so that means out of the possible athletes they can pic any 4 they want I assume. Which could mean a lot of politics in the US to come.
My answer to the original question from last July:
<<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.>>
Track & FIeld News - June 2012 wrote:... winners of the 32 Samsung Diamond League events this year will be accorded wild-card status for the 2013 World Championships.
If a nation has both a DL winner and a WC defender in an event, it will have to choose, as the total remains capped at 4.
That's interesting, so that means out of the possible athletes they can pic any 4 they want I assume. Which could mean a lot of politics in the US to come.
As I see it, USATF has only two choices, in order to be 100% certain of avoiding any controversy: decide this year that A: the WC defender takes precedence or B: the DL winner takes precedence. No "depends on 2013 performances" silliness.
I don't really care which way they go, but they need to make it clear before 2013 rolls around.
gh wrote:As I see it, USATF has only two choices, in order to be 100% certain of avoiding any controversy: decide this year that A: the WC defender takes precedence or B: the DL winner takes precedence. No "depends on 2013 performances" silliness.
I don't really care which way they go, but they need to make it clear before 2013 rolls around.
I definitely agree.
But would the DL winner take precedence over the WC defender, and vice versa? Or would they kick out the 3rd or 2nd or 1st placer at USA's?
gh wrote:My answer to the original question from last July:
<<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.>>
My preference: Champions from most recent global championship gets wild card, so:
2012 Oly champ -> 2013 WC 2013 WC -> 2015 WC 2015 WC -> 2016 Oly etc.
Only IOC won't go along, so 2015 WC would get screwed, unless IAAF allows 2015 WC and 2016 Oly champ -> 2017 WC. But, here again, that increases the number of athletes from a country to potentially five.
My guess is that nothing will change. Cheers, Alan Shank Woodland, CA, USA
gh wrote:As I see it, USATF has only two choices, in order to be 100% certain of avoiding any controversy: decide this year that A: the WC defender takes precedence or B: the DL winner takes precedence. No "depends on 2013 performances" silliness. I don't really care which way they go, but they need to make it clear before 2013 rolls around.
I definitely agree. But would the DL winner take precedence over the WC defender, and vice versa? Or would they kick out the 3rd or 2nd or 1st placer at USA's?
Hopefully the USATF decides that the WC defender has precedence over DL winner... but that is something to decide.
Alan Shank wrote:... that increases the number of athletes from a country to potentially five. Cheers, Alan Shank
Which would be a touch closer to a true World Championship.
Last edited by bushop on Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gh wrote:As I see it, USATF has only two choices, in order to be 100% certain of avoiding any controversy: decide this year that A: the WC defender takes precedence or B: the DL winner takes precedence. No "depends on 2013 performances" silliness.
Agreed that it needs to be decided in advance, and that it needs to be the same for all events.
While I still don't like the rule, at least it seems to lead to a great outcome in the w100.
With DL winner and WChamp from different countries, both U.S. and Jamaica get a fourth spot. And because the DL is also the OG winner, we have in effect wildcards for both WC and OG winners, the way it should be all along.
gh wrote:Not quite. See the story posted on the front page. The men's 200 DL wildcard belongs to Ashmeade, not Bolt. Bolt won Zürich, but not the series.
So choice needs to be made between Blake and Ashmeade next year.
I was referring to the women's 100 with Jeter as WC winner, and SAFP as winner of DL and OG.
The situation with Bolt and Ashmeade exemplifies one of the reasons why I consider the DL wildcard a questionable idea in general. Without a firm rule in place, it's most likely gonna come down to politics in deciding between the two.
72 wrote: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.
But...that's the principle that is in effect today...the previous WC champion has a wild card into the next WC...
In the end, having multiple wild cards hinges on what the IAAF hopes to achieve in a WC Final. Do they want the 8 fastest persons regardless of nationality, or do they want the 8 fastest persons from a capped amount from each country?
Adding an OG wildcard entry for the next WC would complicate things further if the 4-per-country-maximum rule is kept. Right now Jamaica has a mini-dilemma on its hands with the M200m next year.
With wild cards neither Bolt (WC champ wild card) nor Ashmeade (DL champ wild card) have to run in the final at trials. The remaining runners that could finish in the top three are Blake, Weir and Young, all of who are faster than everyone else in the world with the exception of Churandy Martina. But with the IAAF entry cap being 4 athletes the likely scenario is that the JAAA will declare Bolt the wild card entry and Ashmeade would have to run for a spot on the team, even though he has already won a wild card into the WC itself. If he finishes fourth at the national trials as he did this year then the DL wildcard wouldn't make it. So what use then is the wildcard? It all comes down to what the IAAF wants to achieve. 8 fastest on the planet or 8 fastest from a capped amount per country.
gh wrote:Not quite. See the story posted on the front page. The men's 200 DL wildcard belongs to Ashmeade, not Bolt. Bolt won Zürich, but not the series.
So choice needs to be made between Blake and Ashmeade next year.
gh wrote:As I see it, USATF has only two choices, in order to be 100% certain of avoiding any controversy: decide this year that A: the WC defender takes precedence or B: the DL winner takes precedence. No "depends on 2013 performances" silliness.
Or C) Of the two, whoever places higher at the trials gets the wildcard.
Giving either a predetermined preference would only need to come into the picture if both are DNS/DNF/DQ/DH (dead heat).
Chemos, Rudisha and Koech bag tickets August 31 2012 "Thanks to a new rule by the International Association of Athletics Federations, three Kenyans - David Rudisha, Milcah Chemos and Isaiah Kiplangat Koech - have already qualified, automatically, for next year’s World Championships to be held in Moscow." *don't think Rudisha fits the DL qualifier bill.
JAAA Has A Problem To Solve August 31, 2012 "JAAA Secretary Garth Gayle noted that the organisation will make a decision when the time is right, and hinted that there may be amendments to the JAAA selection policy to accommodate the IAAF ruling."
