Athletics Weekly

GB London Olympic Team

News, reports and results from the UK and the rest of the world

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby Geoff » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:25 pm

London 2012: Charles van Commenee says he will quit if his squad fail
• UK athletics has a target of eight medals, including a gold
• Phillips Idowu is an injury concern admits Van Commenee

UK Athletics' head coach, Charles van Commenee, has said he will take ultimate responsibility and fall on his sword if his 77-strong team fail to meet expectations at the London Olympics.

The unveiling of the track and field squad, which includes the once-banned sprinter Dwain Chambers and his teenage rival Adam Gemili, was not without controversy.

Selectors gambled by picking Lynsey Sharp for the 800m despite her recording only a B qualifying time this season. The selection of the European silver medallist meant four other athletes who have run faster times in the past two years, including the 2009 world bronze medallist Jenny Meadows, missed out and two places went unfilled under International Association of Athletics Federations rules.

Van Commenee said he was comfortable with his selections and would quit if the sport, which has had £25m of public and Lottery investment over the past four years, failed to deliver in London.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ju ... n-commenee

How badly injured is Idowu?
Geoff
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby Mr Me » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:29 pm

@MRCCRRLL

We all have favourite athletes that we gun for and hope for selection against the odds. But if heart is what its about, why bother with A standards at all?

she has the best results of all girls going into the Olympics..... she has beaten them all in their last races


She bet them once due to tactical cock ups from the others, at the trials (simpson twice), she hasn't posted an A standard this season or last.

I don't think there would be much controversy if she was selected as a 3rd athlete (which i know isn't possible), but to be selected at the expense of 3 A standard athletes, I just don't think shes fast enough.

Ps I like her, and look fwd to what she can do in the future.
Mr Me
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:42 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby Mr Me » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:34 pm

Sharp beat Simpson soundly in both the trials and the Europeans so Sharp takes priority. Next Jenny Meadows....with all due respect to Jenny's pedigree, she has not run a competitive race this year and if I was a selector I would be reluctant to pick her and just hope that her achilles didn't flare up again in the heats.

That leaves Okoro, Jackson and Sharp. Marilyn Okoro has had countless opportunities to compete at major championships and has never performed at her best in any of them. The naivety she displayed at the trials is not the first time that she has made a tactical error in a major championship so.... do you give her a place or pick the girl who won the trials? I'd pick Lyndsey first


Your basically saying that A standards mean nothing, Maz recorded 2 a standards and is british no.1 does that mean nothing. Or are you just a fan of lyndsey?
Mr Me
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:42 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby MRCCRRLL » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:39 pm

I suppose so. I agree with you that there would not have been such controversy should she be the third selected.

But following your logic, what is the point in having heats and semis, why isn't the Olympics about just a race off with the top 8/12 fastest people of the year? Why send Dwain et al, when there are clearly faster people being left at home in Jamaica and US?

Racing is not just about running the fastest times leading in, its the excitement about being say .03 off qualifying or, conversely, a medal.
MRCCRRLL
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:00 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby greenie1982 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:41 pm

People keep saying the 8 medal target wont be achieved but I think it is certainly doable

Jess or Mo will both pick up one (one of them would be gold) = 2

Rutherford, robbie grabarz and idowu (subject to fitness) should medal plus one or two in the relays

The we could easily pick up a bronze in one or two of any of the following: W Pole Vault, W Jav, 110mh, m 400mh, 400m men and women, W LJ, W TJ

So really is the 8 target to low?
greenie1982
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby Tuckin » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:45 pm

If there were no such things as A or B standards, and if there were no obligation to take the winner of the trials, which three would you take? (I'd take Sharp, Jackson and Okoro.)

If the above applied but you could only take one 800m runner, who would it be? (For me in this scenario, it would be Sharp.)

BUT with the selection criteria as they are, and with the choice being between Sharp and any three others, I think the decision is all kinds of crazy.
Tuckin
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 11:41 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby mump boy » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:51 am

disco_rage wrote:As for Talbot, if you can't run 20.55 before the Games, seriously, how far is he going to go in the Olympics? 1st round?


So why have Dwayne or Lee been selected ? Lee came 3rd at trials and only has A from last year and came 5th at euros, Dwayne may have won trials but he only has A from last year and totally messed up the relay at the euros

Athletes don't seem to have any idea what the most important criteria was, trails, A standards, current A standards, 2 B standards but missing the trials seem to be preferred over 1 B but winning at the trials.

Mervyn Luckwell only has 1 A and didn't even compete at the trials but he gets selected but Gareth doesn't. Jade Nichols has 2 B and competed at the trials but isn't selected, Stuart Stokes has 2 B's didn't compete and is !!

It is the inconsistency rather than the selections themselves that is so galling ?
mump boy
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby TheRealSub10 » Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:17 am

Tuckin wrote:
TheRealSub10 wrote:If they appeal and are successful it's win win for CVC and the athletes.


Tell that to Lynsey Sharp...
Yes of course, sorry she is the exception. But I think she is safe in terms of selection. I was thinking more about those with a single A standard.
TheRealSub10
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:00 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby TheRealSub10 » Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:23 am

One thing to note in all of this is that EVERYONE knew (there were multiple meetings around this point and it's in bold on the selection policy) that the ONLY way to GUARANTEE selection was to come top 2 at the trials and have an A standard. Otherwise it comes down to the discretion of the selectors. Like in boxing "never leave it in the hands of the judges".
TheRealSub10
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:00 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby AEW » Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:28 am

Mr Me wrote: "Your basically saying that A standards mean nothing, Maz recorded 2 a standards and is british no.1 does that mean nothing. Or are you just a fan of lyndsey?" (Sorry...too technologically challenged to use the quote button!)

I don't think whether you are a fan of an athlete or not is relevant to this topic....but for the record since you ask.... I'm actually a big Jenny Meadows fan and I'm hugely disappointed that she is injured. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the performances of other athletes.

I'm not saying that the A standards mean nothing but they are only one factor to be taken into account otherwise you just pick the top 3 on the power of 10 provided they have the A standard. So I ask the opposite question.....why bother having trials?

Selectors realise that championships are about performing on the big occasion....not just about times. If this was the US then Jenny, Marilyn and Emma would not even be considered. Lyndsey won the trials and would be selected for team USA. The only alternative would be to pick Jemma who, whilst having the standard from last year is clearly not at her best this season. So do you pick the athlete who won the trials and took a silver at the Europeans or the athlete that was second at the trials and trailed home in 7th place at the Europeans....behind Lyndsey on each occasion? No contest.
AEW
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:43 pm

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby Geoff » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:08 am

Moving away from the 800m debate, which I consider being almost unique, it is interesting to see Simeon Williamson making the team in the relay squad. I think he'd pretty much given up on being selected. I assume Harry AA's injury was more serious than first thought and he must be gutted to have missed out.

The athlete with the best chance of winning his appeal is Gareth Warburton but others have a slim chance if the appeals panel and/or BOA decide, for numerous reasons, decide to be more lenient. The main grounds for appeal appear to be:

1. Lack of clarity about what was required in the discretionary part of the criteria
2. Inconsistencies in the selections
3. Precedent set by Lee Merrien

I will be surprised if Lynsey Sharp is deselected but a handful of others have a chance.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby ultragirl » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:13 am

Given the huge investment made then the funders of UKA should be expecting 4 golds, 4 silvers and 4 bronze medals ,it should not be for UKA to set the tally but those who pay them so handsomely. If they fail to get this then all the management should go not just CVC ,that would just make him a scape goat for the rest of the failiures.
ultragirl
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 11:50 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby 1mummydearest » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:34 am

For the life of me I do not understand why times are taken from last year as we all know a lot can happen in a year

All times for qualification should be taken as now. It would close down the arguments for who was in good condition

and performing well . How can a person expect to be selected when they havent performed at all since last year. The

trials for the olympics should have been now. Would show athletes that were on form or coming into good form. If they

not performing now then they never going to be on time. A few weeks not going to make a lot of difference regarding

who the athlete is. Standards should be on the year of competition. I would say even for multi eventers as i can see we

have a multi eventer who only has a score from last year!!!!
.
1mummydearest
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:51 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby Tuckin » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:40 am

AEW wrote:If this was the US then Jenny, Marilyn and Emma would not even be considered. Lyndsey won the trials and would be selected for team USA. The only alternative would be to pick Jemma who, whilst having the standard from last year is clearly not at her best this season.


I could be wrong, but I think that Jemma would be guaranteed selection if this was the US, and that without an A standard Lynsey would be out.

[EDIT: This is the US policy: "If two or more athletes in an event final have met the "A" standard by the end of that event in the Trials, then the top three who have met the "A" final, based on their placement in the Trials (finalists, in order of finish, then semi-finalists, in order of semi-final time/distance, then preliminary rounds, in order of best preliminary round time/distance), are on the Olympic team, with the fourth-best placement among those meeting the "A" standard being an alternate."

In other words, if this were the US, the team would be Simpson, Jackson, Okoro!]
Tuckin
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 11:41 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby bevone » Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:25 am

Merv is injured and has not competed for while and by not competing has ensured his place. He also has a poor record at majors. Jenny Meadow's omission was supported by a news reporter because he pointed out that she didn't do the trials, she went to the Europeans and didn't run and the medical team have made a judgement on her which makes a compelling case. But you could argue that Merv Luckwell is basically in the same boat - but is not a proven performer - and his not competing has probably ensured his place even though he has not performed sine early june. Then again there were not 3 other jav throwers with A standards breathing down his neck!

This is an attempt to show inequality in a case that is similar but not identical and I 100% approve of Merv's selection as he has done more than enough to earn it. The more throwers the better which is why I think Eden and Jade should have the opportunity as well. I also support Jenny's inclusion but she has not competed this year which means she has no form and I am sure she doesn't want to be giving the post race interview telling us that it was a risk which didn't pay off -because it would be at someone else's expense. Saying that - non of these 800m runners would make finals would they?
bevone
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:57 pm
Location: UK

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby CCUK » Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:27 am

I'm just really disappointed that CVC hasn't picked a bigger team. We can go over and over all the performances from the perspective of a bunch of athletics nuts, but this Olympics really is a unique opportunity to get the public engaged in the sport and I think having a Brit to cheer, even one who realistically cannot hope to be anything other than "an Olympian" is important in that. I really can't see any decent rationale for not fielding a full team where we can - can't imagine the morale of our serious contenders being knocked by having a few more also-rans, and anyway those people would probably be buzzing and happy just to be part of the circus. Why fill up the team in some events and leave others empty? It all seems a bit random!
CCUK
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby ultragirl » Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:48 am

I agree bevone & ccuk, it is not about CVCs ego it is about the British public seeing as many athletes in every event as possible, for the benefits of athletics and for someone to cheer on. The home country should have an automatic right to field a full team of the best 3 in every event, and why not WE have just spent over £12 Billion of OUR money putting them on, this is the least we should expect.
ultragirl
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 11:50 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby CCUK » Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:18 am

I wonder if a couple of the non-selections might be overturned on appeal? Does anyone know when the appeals deadline is? I think it may be today sometime.
CCUK
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby jjimbojames » Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:29 am

Tuckin wrote:
AEW wrote:If this was the US then Jenny, Marilyn and Emma would not even be considered. Lyndsey won the trials and would be selected for team USA. The only alternative would be to pick Jemma who, whilst having the standard from last year is clearly not at her best this season.


I could be wrong, but I think that Jemma would be guaranteed selection if this was the US, and that without an A standard Lynsey would be out.

[EDIT: This is the US policy: "If two or more athletes in an event final have met the "A" standard by the end of that event in the Trials, then the top three who have met the "A" final, based on their placement in the Trials (finalists, in order of finish, then semi-finalists, in order of semi-final time/distance, then preliminary rounds, in order of best preliminary round time/distance), are on the Olympic team, with the fourth-best placement among those meeting the "A" standard being an alternate."

In other words, if this were the US, the team would be Simpson, Jackson, Okoro!]

Words right out of my mouth! The same people calling for US Trials scenario are the ones supporting the selection!
jjimbojames
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:03 pm

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby Geoff » Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:50 am

It's Olympic year and Paula's bound to be injured!

From the BBC
LONDON 2012
Paula Radcliffe says she has been left in "a bit of a panic" after another injury setback, but says there is hopefully time to get it sorted out.

Professor Hans Muller-Wohlfahrt, who will help Radcliffe recover, is a world leader in treatment of sports injuries. He has treated Radcliffe in the past, as well as Usain Bolt, Jurgen Klinsmann and Steven Gerrard.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby Geoff » Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:54 am

London 2012: Paula Radcliffe has injury concern ahead of Olympics
Paula Radcliffe has injury concerns ahead of the London Olympics.

The Team GB marathon runner is suffering from problems in her left foot, an injury first sustained in 2009, that is making training painful.

Painkilling injections have failed to mask the problem, and Radcliffe is travelling to see a sports injuries specialist in Germany.

Despite admitting she is in "a bit of a panic," the 38-year-old is still hopeful of competing in London 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18705791
Geoff
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby Geoff » Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:13 pm

I know this is a Daily Mail article and we all know the problem between CVC and Idowu but it's an interesting read.


One giant leap for GB: 'Too busy' coach Van Commenee ready to gamble on Idowu fitness


Phillips Idowu may be injured. But, then again, he might not be.

That was about all the usually omniscient, cocksure, incontrovertible head coach of UK Athletics, Charles van Commenee, could tell us about Idowu as he unveiled the 77 names that will carry the nation’s hopes in the Olympics’ primary sport, track and field, in London this summer.
Among those 77, only a handful — and we are being generous here — harbour realistic gold medal ambitions. Idowu, a former world champion, is perhaps chief among the male hopefuls.


Yet Van Commenee sniffed at the very suggestion that it might possibly have been a good idea to have enquired about the triple jumper’s injury status. Too busy for that, claimed Van Commenee. It’s a bit like the Chancellor of the Exchequer being too busy to worry about the economy.

......
So will he compete? ‘There are no guarantees. The athlete was injured. That’s all we know. How can I possibly be confident? I can’t be. I’m not relaxed. How can I be relaxed?’

A simple phone call might allay his fears.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympi ... z1zeRT7aWu
Geoff
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby alfie7 » Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:43 pm

Like everybody else I've been trying to get my head around some of the apparent inconsistencies in the selection , and have come up with a couple of theories.
Some omissions are clear enough : Oni , Francis , Nicholls... pretty clear they just felt they are too far off the pace to be worth including. Seems a bit mean spirited to me , home Olympics and all , but there you go...
Tomlinson on the other hand has enough past record to ensure inclusion , in the hope that he recovers form quickly , in which case he would be a contender.
McConnell is included in the individual because she is in the relay , is the only other runner with the A , and has trial result bragging rights over any other person even in the event of a late qualifier. The Talbot case is a little different , in that he is only one of two or three with the A. Is it not possible that they actually anticipated an appeal - duly made by Richard Kilty - and preferred to get that resolved before filling the last spot ? If I'm right they will be filling that spot eventually one way or another...
Warburton may also have been left out because there must be some slight chance that Mukhtar Mohammed , who beat him at the trials , may find a race somewhere and run an A in the next couple of days , somewhat muddying the waters ? So he could yet be added as a late selection ... Seems a bit over complicated but I am searching for some kind of reason for leaving a spot empty.
I have no explanation for the omission of Irozuru.

CVC did practically invite people to put up appeals...
alfie7
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:41 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby CCUK » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:15 pm

If you believe Twitter, apparently Jade Nicholls, Richard Kilty and Jemma Simpson :!: are appealing.
CCUK
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby CCUK » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:17 pm

Oooh, also Jackson, Warburton
CCUK
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby clutch30green » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:02 pm

The more and more I think about this, the more I just don’t understand and I do worry about the impact of these decisions on the future of the sport leading to the next Olympics in 2016.

When CVC was put into the post, it was to lead us to 2012 and I’m sure it would have been hoped that Athletics as a result of the Olympics would have been in a real positive state, with increased interest and increased talent in the sport. This team was therefore going to be the most important team selection under CVC and he and his selectors have got it in some cases right, but in many cases wrong. As a result I fear that any of the positives that have happened during CVC’s time so far (down to him or not) may have been completely ruined with this selection. We are now in a situation where athletes young and old may walk away from the sport and as a result interest in the sport may dwindle – this means we could be starting all over again leading to the next Olympics instead of riding high.

For THIS Olympics a home Olympics with a real opportunity to attract new spectators and new athletes into the team, we should have had the biggest possible team. For THIS Olympics, I really believe the Criteria should have acted as a guide only. A lot is at stake for the future sustainability of this sport and for that reason alone, I cannot understand where the harm would have been to have ensured we had the biggest team possible. Where would the harm have been to have added athletes to spaces as a reward for their commitment and hard work for making improvements, as long as these athletes met the IAAF/IOC Standards like Lee merrien and as long as they weren’t taking the places of others with 2 A standards. Where is the harm in allowing Eden Francis a place on the team in the Shot for throwing the furthest by a female british athlete for around a decade. Where was the harm in allowing Danny Talbot a spot in the 200m for his Bronze at the Europeans. Where was the harm in allowing Lorraine Ugen, Abagale Irozuru and JJ Jegede spots in the Long Jumps for making vast improvements over the last 12 months and bringing the standards up. Where was the harm in allowing Alex Smith and Mark Dry both spots in the Hammer as they’ve both worked really hard and are now consistently pulling up the standard in one of Britains weakest events. Where was the harm in allowing Lynsey Sharpe to run alongside Maz Okoro and Emma Jackson and where was the harm in allowing Katie Bryers to compete in the Pole Vault as a result of her Junior Record etc etc etc. I know these athletes wouldn’t have all made the final and some wouldn’t maybe have got to the semi-finals, but where is the harm. They could have excelled due to the massive crowds and achieved something unexpected, they could have come away from 2012 motivated to achieve and continue to improve for future success instead of coming away deflated and depressed and wandering why bother, and the spectators could have had more athletes to get behind thus having more opportunities to get into the sport (which is how I got into it from watching a European Cup competition where we didn’t have all winners). For THIS Olympics where was the harm? The worry now is how much talent could we lose and how this will affect future championships and ultimately interest.

I really do hope all the team selected have a great success and I’m sure they will, but will this now mask the real problems behind the scenes which will emerge from this stubborn and inconsistent selection, which will come back and bite the sport from next year? Where was the harm in ensuring this team would be the team to motivate and encourage the athletes and have given the spectators as many people to get behind?
clutch30green
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:59 pm

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby sidelined » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:07 pm

Why not use the Olympics as a development opportunity for athletes like Irozuru, Francis and Nicholls? What is wrong with embracing the Olympic spirit and letting them take part, and meet the world's youth in peace and harmony (or whatever it was the baron said)?
Last edited by sidelined on Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sidelined
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:19 pm

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby mump boy » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:34 pm

AEW wrote: Lyndsey won the trials and would be selected for team USA.


Lynsey would NOT be selected for team USA

If you win the trials and have a B you will only be selected if there is only 1 person with an A standard. If there are multiple A's they get selected ahead of a B.

Even the US with the most cutthroat selection policy see the stupidity of selecting 1 person when you can select 3
mump boy
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby mump boy » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:37 pm

Geoff wrote:
1. Lack of clarity about what was required in the discretionary part of the criteria
2. Inconsistencies in the selections
3. Precedent set by Lee Merrien



This ^^^
mump boy
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

Re: GB London Olympic Team

Postby mump boy » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:41 pm

Tuckin wrote:
AEW wrote:If this was the US then Jenny, Marilyn and Emma would not even be considered. Lyndsey won the trials and would be selected for team USA. The only alternative would be to pick Jemma who, whilst having the standard from last year is clearly not at her best this season.


I could be wrong, but I think that Jemma would be guaranteed selection if this was the US, and that without an A standard Lynsey would be out.

[EDIT: This is the US policy: "If two or more athletes in an event final have met the "A" standard by the end of that event in the Trials, then the top three who have met the "A" final, based on their placement in the Trials (finalists, in order of finish, then semi-finalists, in order of semi-final time/distance, then preliminary rounds, in order of best preliminary round time/distance), are on the Olympic team, with the fourth-best placement among those meeting the "A" standard being an alternate."

In other words, if this were the US, the team would be Simpson, Jackson, Okoro!]


This is correct
mump boy
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

PreviousNext

Return to Current events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London