Athletics Weekly

Gareth Warburton

This forum has been closed and continues at http://www.athleticsweekly.com/forums/f ... nt-events/

Gareth Warburton

Postby Garciathegreat » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:28 am

Firstly let me make it clear I dont even know the guy and he could be the worst human being in the world for all I know but.............why on earth is he not going to the Olympics?

It looks to me that the selectors have found a reason not to select him rather than trying to find an 'easier reason' to select him. A Standard and sub 1 min 45 without doubt, for me personally, means he deserves to be an Olympian regardless if he goes out in the first round.

I am so annoyed on his behalf. "Right performance at right time" - to be honest this only applies to a few of our athletes anyway. I would argue achieving an A standard at any time is something to be incredibly proud of. It is something that not all people in the team have achieved. I would argue that they haven't produced the right performance at any time.

Please god let some common sense prevail on this - it does come across, although clearly this is not the reason, that UKA are simply punishing hard working athletes for no reason. I have nothing against the sprinters but are you seriously telling me that a sub 1 min 45 800m is not on a par with the majority of these cases.

Whole point of athletics is that is was not a subjective sport but somehow it has now become so - people looking to make contraversial decisions when really it would have been easier to do the right think. Complete and utter joke!
Garciathegreat
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:15 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby ultragirl » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:43 am

You make a very sound logical argument 8) 8) 8) One I think nearly everyone agrees with, Gareth could in my opinion run another sub 1.45 in the heats which will be comparable to the best achievements of 80% of the rest of the team, he even might excell and make the semi final, home ground and adrenaline is a fine combinatuon for bringing out the impossible in athletes, I think Van Comedy has lost this point or he is being instructed not to pick certain athletes by people with hidden agenda's.

These heartless people need to think long and hard about the implications of their abuses after their games have passed, treating hard working succesful qualified athletes who have given their hearts and souls and money and time along with their coaches to get to their lifes dream will put out the message that it is not worth bothering chasing dreams, unless that is, UKA can own you body and soul and contract and even then we will play God with your emotions and personal investment.

WE do not need UKA interfering with athletics, a sport that has conclusively shown it can run itself by people who have integrity and do the right things by athletes such as Gareth.

Rant over :D
ultragirl
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 11:50 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby mump boy » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:08 am

ultragirl wrote:You make a very sound logical argument 8) 8) 8) One I think nearly everyone agrees with, Gareth could in my opinion run another sub 1.45 in the heats which will be comparable to the best achievements of 80% of the rest of the team, he even might excell and make the semi final, home ground and adrenaline is a fine combinatuon for bringing out the impossible in athletes, I think Van Comedy has lost this point or he is being instructed not to pick certain athletes by people with hidden agenda's.

These heartless people need to think long and hard about the implications of their abuses after their games have passed, treating hard working succesful qualified athletes who have given their hearts and souls and money and time along with their coaches to get to their lifes dream will put out the message that it is not worth bothering chasing dreams, unless that is, UKA can own you body and soul and contract and even then we will play God with your emotions and personal investment.

WE do not need UKA interfering with athletics, a sport that has conclusively shown it can run itself by people who have integrity and do the right things by athletes such as Gareth.

Rant over :D


I've just read 2 posts by you that i agree with :shock: :?

(goes to get smelling salts)
mump boy
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Geoff » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:09 am

Of all the athletes with qualifying performances left out of the team Gareth is the one that seems best placed to win his appeal. There are so many inconsistencies in the selections I find it baffling he has not been selected. He ran a solo run in Oslo to dip under 1.45 then tried a solo run in Helsinki and came close to the A standard where he was clearly under the impression it was the time that counted and not medals. A crurrent A and two B's must be better than than two Bs on which some are selected.

The way the team has been selected in in no way helpful to the athletes. Adding a few extra is not going to lower team morale, infact the way it is now I suspect morale is worse. Why attract unwanted publicity? it makes no sense.

The appeals panel must surely overturn this decision and allow Gareth to compete in our home Olympic Games. The independent barrister must surely see precedent has been set with some of the selections and the criteria fails to fairly compare the worth of A and B standards.

Gareth Warburton should be selected.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby alfie7 » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:18 am

Totally agree with the posts above.

I did suggest on another thread that they might have been waiting to make sure Mukhtar Mohammed didn't get a late A , with all the appeals flying around ...but in truth even if he did I imagine they could have justified selecting Warburton due to the official time limit having passed.

Leaving the place vacant makes no sense at all and I will be surprised - and disgusted - if he doesn't win his appeal.
alfie7
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby paul » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:25 am

Gareth ran 1:46.85 for 6th in Reims yesterday.
paul
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby ultragirl » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:32 am

mump boy wrote:
ultragirl wrote:You make a very sound logical argument 8) 8) 8) One I think nearly everyone agrees with, Gareth could in my opinion run another sub 1.45 in the heats which will be comparable to the best achievements of 80% of the rest of the team, he even might excell and make the semi final, home ground and adrenaline is a fine combinatuon for bringing out the impossible in athletes, I think Van Comedy has lost this point or he is being instructed not to pick certain athletes by people with hidden agenda's.

These heartless people need to think long and hard about the implications of their abuses after their games have passed, treating hard working succesful qualified athletes who have given their hearts and souls and money and time along with their coaches to get to their lifes dream will put out the message that it is not worth bothering chasing dreams, unless that is, UKA can own you body and soul and contract and even then we will play God with your emotions and personal investment.

WE do not need UKA interfering with athletics, a sport that has conclusively shown it can run itself by people who have integrity and do the right things by athletes such as Gareth.

Rant over :D


I've just read 2 posts by you that i agree with :shock: :?

(goes to get smelling salts)



:lol: :lol: :lol: where's them salts?
ultragirl
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 11:50 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Garciathegreat » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:34 am

Also no individual can have a realistic problem with his 'inclusion' - not his fellow 800m athletes/public anyone. There is no discussion to be had on this it is such a simple decision - take an A standard athlete in an event that has a place available and it will affect no other individuals.

He is clearly the third best option for the event and to just leave it blank over a small technicality is a disgrace. What a bunch of clowns, I am all for clever decisions if there is a sensible logic but this is the reverse.

It is almost like the A Standard means less than a one off race in the trials - probably best not to turn up and say feeling a bit dodgy and take a gamble.

All this nonsense about making top 8 and winning medals and taking a tight team etc etc etc - have they forgot that simply making the Olympics is a massive achievement particularly in athletics - the individual is an Olympian for the rest of there days. They have earned the right go go out in the first round - they are not turning up with the intention of achieving that but they are competing against the best in the world, not mugs, that are not simply going to roll over and say have a place in the final.

CVC 'right performance at right time' arguably he should have told Sharp that as Warburton was clearly under the impression another A standard was his only option. Nothing against Sharp but this was her chance to try the same under the knowledge that UKA could not possibly take her without this as it would sacrifice another two athletes - that is all about the 'right performance at the right time'. She is a very good athlete and I hope she does well but why was she not put under the same time pressure as others? Medals are all very nice but depend on the strength of the event. Roger Blacks silver would probably have been gold in another era, Kelly Holmes double gold may not even have medalled in a stronger event etc etc Contraversial comments I am sure but accurate - take the bloody lad to the Olympics and can we have enough of this nonsense already.
Garciathegreat
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:15 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby paul » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:45 am

Garciathegreat wrote: ... Kelly Holmes double gold may not even have medalled in a stronger event etc etc Contraversial comments I am sure but accurate


I don't disagree with your main case,
but on this point,
Holmes beat a who's-who of the greatest 800m runners since Quirot. Hard to see how it could have been stronger
(except with Pammy in, I guess!).
And in the 1500 she had a lot to spare. I honestly don't believe there is a woman yet born who would have beaten her that day.

#justsayin
paul
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Garciathegreat » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:51 am

Fair enough Paul entitled to your opinion and nothing to say mine is right etc but in my opinion mutola a couple of years prior amongst a few others probably would have turned her from a Dame to a MBE
Garciathegreat
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:15 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby paul » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:01 am

This is a conversation I'd happily continue for the rest of my life. But I'd better do some work today or I'll be in trouble.
:lol:
paul
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby AEW » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:05 pm

I couldn't agree more about Gareth Warburton and cannot see any reason why he shouldn't be added to the team now!
AEW
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:43 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Flumpy » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:39 pm

Is there anyone (Other than UKA) who doesn't think he should be on the team?

I can't think of even one valid reason to explain their decision.

This is obviously the most egregious individual selection decision, the 800m is just more contentious as 3 people have unfairly missed out rather than 1.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby larkim » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:54 pm

Agree about GW. Here's the section from the policy which they have applied. It is quite subjective...

Next the Panel will consider all remaining athletes who meet the Qualification Requirements.
Meeting the Qualification Requirements does not guarantee nomination even if there is space in the team. The Panel will not nominate any athlete who it has good reason to think will be uncompetitive at the Games due to, for example, injury, illness or lack of recent form. Where the Panel has a choice between several athletes they will prioritise the athlete(s) who they believe will finish higher at the Games. In coming to this decision the Panel will use their expert opinion and consider, in any order that they see fit:
a. consistency of performances shown by achieving multiple “A” standards within the Qualification Period,
b. previous championships performances,
c. position at the Trials if relevant,
d. current form and fitness
e. any other factor(s) which in the Panel’s opinion will impact on an athlete’s ability to be competitive at the Games.
Note: The expectation is that athletes will achieve an “A” standard to be nominated for an individual discipline; however athletes meeting the Qualification Requirements with only “B” standard(s) may be nominated in cases where point 5.b applies.
larkim
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby AEW » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:07 pm

Suspect his 8th in the Euro semis was what clinched it. Harsh at a home Olympics but in line with stated aims
AEW
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:43 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Geoff » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:10 pm

larkim wrote:Agree about GW. Here's the section from the policy which they have applied. It is quite subjective...

Next the Panel will consider all remaining athletes who meet the Qualification Requirements.
Meeting the Qualification Requirements does not guarantee nomination even if there is space in the team. The Panel will not nominate any athlete who it has good reason to think will be uncompetitive at the Games due to, for example, injury, illness or lack of recent form. Where the Panel has a choice between several athletes they will prioritise the athlete(s) who they believe will finish higher at the Games. In coming to this decision the Panel will use their expert opinion and consider, in any order that they see fit:
a. consistency of performances shown by achieving multiple “A” standards within the Qualification Period,
b. previous championships performances,
c. position at the Trials if relevant,
d. current form and fitness
e. any other factor(s) which in the Panel’s opinion will impact on an athlete’s ability to be competitive at the Games.
Note: The expectation is that athletes will achieve an “A” standard to be nominated for an individual discipline; however athletes meeting the Qualification Requirements with only “B” standard(s) may be nominated in cases where point 5.b applies.


Just to highlight the inconsistency of this, but not in any way saying another athlete should not be selected, compare that criteria to Merv Luckwell:
a. Multiple A standards - he only has one that counts
b. Championship performances - very poor
c. Position in trials - did not take part
d. Current form/fitness - injured

At least Gareth had a go at getting a second A standard and remember he was 4th in the Commonwealth Games. Someone please explain why one is selected and the other is not and why the unlucky one is Gareth?
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby usedtoit33 » Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:11 am

In Merv's case he has been a lot more consistent over the past year or two. His championship record is against him as well as injury. But he's thrown over 80m a few times, including at the Olympic stadium itself in May at the BUCS.

But in general, I agree. Can't see why you wouldn't pick Warburton, although their selection policy gives them room to do this.
usedtoit33
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 9:44 am
Location: Liverpool

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Garciathegreat » Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:53 am

That is the point really - they have found a reason not to select him. Shouldnt the UKA selectors be trying to find a reason to select him and fill a place - as they have done for others. They could find a reason not to select Dwain Chambers but havent in fact told him didnt need to chase an A standard - and yet he has no real chance of making the final on current form and to be fair his past and attitude flies in the face of the olympic ethos...............
Garciathegreat
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:15 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby BigGut » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:36 am

To my mind Warburton and Irozuru are both in the same situation. Both have the A standard, both have failed to perform, Warburton in the Euros, Irozuru at the trials, after getting that standard, but both would not be denying anybody a place by getting selected. I hope they both appeal and go to the games.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby larkim » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:52 am

Applying something of a lawyers eye to the policy, it would seem to me that the judgement about an uninjured "A" standard athlete who has not been selected for the team where a spot is left empty must be based on the following logic:-
the panel believes that they have good reason to think they will be uncompetitive at the Games due to lack of recent form

For Warburton or Irozuru that is the only section that counts. The further criteria are about how the panel prioritises between different athletes (the "Sharp" scenario).

(In the Sharp scenario, they must have had some sort of scoring system to apply those 5 criteria, under which Lynsey Sharp must have come out top. If that was the case, they were more or less obliged to take Lynsey, as to put issues like team size into the equation would have been outside the scope of their written policy)

Matt
larkim
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Garciathegreat » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:03 am

larkim - I think you are right but applying my financial mind to the figures of the situation - a 1 min 45 runner will be as a competitive as any of the male marathon runners/most of the sprinters adn numerous others etc etc

If that is the reason, and it does appear to be, I am shocked and to be honest disgusted at the UKA selectors for obvious bias towards certain athletes (I don't blame them) and the patronising refusal to acknowledge there own A standard athletes...........as I say all round joke really!
Garciathegreat
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:15 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Garciathegreat » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:03 am

larkim - I think you are right but applying my financial mind to the figures of the situation - a 1 min 45 runner will be as a competitive as any of the male marathon runners/most of the sprinters adn numerous others etc etc

If that is the reason, and it does appear to be, I am shocked and to be honest disgusted at the UKA selectors for obvious bias towards certain athletes (I don't blame them) and the patronising refusal to acknowledge there own A standard athletes...........as I say all round joke really!
Garciathegreat
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:15 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby larkim » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:24 am

It was only a lawyers eye - I'm not a lawyer (accountant actually!)

I'm not disagreeing with you; on a range of "competitiveness" I would have said that prima facie any athlete who has achieved an A standard within 1 month of the selection meeting having improved his PB in the year of the competition would be at least "competitive". Otherwise you are arguing that the IAAF A standards are too low. Its also quite difficult to argue that on current form Warburton is significantly less competitive than Rimmer, who we should remember has also been picked on a discretionary basis after coming in 3rd at the Trials.

I'd be quite positive if I was GW.

Matt
larkim
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby alfie7 » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:34 pm

larkim wrote:Applying something of a lawyers eye to the policy, it would seem to me that the judgement about an uninjured "A" standard athlete who has not been selected for the team where a spot is left empty must be based on the following logic:-
the panel believes that they have good reason to think they will be uncompetitive at the Games due to lack of recent form

For Warburton or Irozuru that is the only section that counts. The further criteria are about how the panel prioritises between different athletes (the "Sharp" scenario).

(In the Sharp scenario, they must have had some sort of scoring system to apply those 5 criteria, under which Lynsey Sharp must have come out top. If that was the case, they were more or less obliged to take Lynsey, as to put issues like team size into the equation would have been outside the scope of their written policy)

Matt


I think that is a pretty good reading of the selectors' thinking , larkim

Now we need to define "competitive" . Is getting out of the first round enough ? Or do you have to be a genuine finals prospect ...

Leaving aside the inconsistencies already highlighted by several posters , what I am having trouble with is the approach of avoiding poor performances as a first priority.
CVC is on record as fearing that early elimination of some athletes could have a bad effect on team morale. This seems to me a rather timid approach : why not look at the other side of the coin ? If an unfancied athlete were to perform much better than expected - not unheard of when in front of a supportive home crowd - and reach an unexpected final , or even just a semi , would this not have a positive effect on that morale ?
In my experience , an optimistic attitude in sport is more often going to lead to success than an ultra careful , fearful one.

I do understand the "raise the bar" theory , though I am not as sure as some that it is actually always effective , but this is a Home Olympics , and I really believe it would be better for athletes and fans alike to have the maximum possible numbers entered.
Certainly hope Warburton succeeds in his appeal.
alfie7
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Charlie Boy » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:36 pm

Thats the problem we are all struggling with, it seems different factors have been set for different athletes. Athletes who have had similar seasons but one has been picked and one has not. The best thing about athletics is furthest jump, longest throw and fastest run is the winner. The selectors have complicated the matter so much the athletes and supporters are all left scratching their heads. I personally would of filled as many places as possible including Warburton. Its a home Olympics and we should be able to cheer on as many brits as possible. Current form should not be a factor as the games are still a month away, plenty of time to rediscover or dare I say lose of form.
Charlie Boy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:23 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Flumpy » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:19 pm

He's won his appeal and is now on the team :mrgreen:
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Flumpy » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:21 pm

I' still like an explanation as to why he was left off in the first place :?
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Charlie Boy » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:22 pm

Congratulations finally common sense prevails :lol:
Charlie Boy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:23 am

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby Flumpy » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:25 pm

Well kind of. Everyone else's was turned down. :x
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Gareth Warburton

Postby usedtoit33 » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:27 pm

Really glad to hear this! Five Welsh athletes on the team now. :D
usedtoit33
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 9:44 am
Location: Liverpool

Next

Return to Current events (Legacy Only)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London