Provided that an athlete has achieved the Olympic standard, a 3rd place finish at the Trials gets them an Olympic berth even if they are a relative unknown. At the world class level, there is not a whole lot of spread. It's possible for an unheralded athlete to get red hot on race day and beat the best in the world. By the same token, if the best in the world is nursing a slight injury or catches a virus at the exact wrong time, they are off the team if they finish outside the top 3. I see pros and cons to this system that I will discuss later.
I don't really follow Track and Field much nowadays but I did see a few clips from this year's Trials. I was saddened by the outcome of the Women's 800 in which one of the strong favorites fell 200 meters into the race. It may be possible to come back in the 5000 but certainly not the 800. She put her heart and soul into training for so many years and now must wait 4 years for another opportunity because of a split second of bad luck. Tough break! I really do feel for her. I read that she was the defending champion and was ranked at or near #1 in the world last year. Cases like this are the reason why many people call for reform.
In 1992, Carl Lewis entered the Trials in the 100 as the defending Olympic championship, reigning World Champion and world record holder. Even though he was 31 years old, he was the clear favorite. Weakened by a virus, Lewis finished 6th in the 100 and 4th in the 200. Tough! He did qualify in the Long Jump and was selected for the 4x100 relay so I can't feel too sorry for him.
Not many Track fans remember Michael Bates. He was a relative unknown who just barely edged out Carl Lewis for the 3rd and final spot in the 200. Under most systems of selection, only the winner is guaranteed entry and the next 2 are selected by an Independent panel. Sometimes, only 1 is selected while the top 2 are guaranteed entry. My point is that if Carl Lewis ran for any other country, he's almost certainly in even with a poor performance at the Trials. Defenders of the American system will say that Bates was deserving because he ran the same race as everyone else and finished third fair and square. Certainly a valid point. Also, there may be corruption and even bribery involved with the selection committee. Taking the top 3 with no ifs ands or buts eliminates that possibility. For the record, Bates went on to win the Olympic bronze so he certainly turned out to be a worthy representative.
My solution is to leave the system as is but allow an International panel to choose one wild card per event. That's one in the world per event, not one wild card per country. IMO, that's a fair safeguard against an untimely injury or illness and you don't bump anyone off who earned it at the Trials. Corruption is still possible but it can be avoided by finishing in the top 3. I'd give the wild card to the athlete with the highest rank in the previous year.
In 1997, Michael Johnson missed the US Nationals after he was injured in the match race with Donovan Bailey. Somehow, he was given a wild card entry in the 400, which he won. Nobody else who missed the Nationals was given the same treatment but Johnson was the defending champion and the king of the sport at the time. I agreed with the decision. Again, this was for the World Championship, not the Olympics.
When it comes to meeting the Olympic standard, it can be just as cruel. In the 100, the standard is 10.00 seconds. A 10.01 into a slight headwind or a barely wind aided 9.91? No good. Both are good for a sub-10 in still air but won't be accepted. Tough! It's a hard line but I have to agree with it. Too subjective otherwise. Life isn't fair. Nowadays, you need to be in the 9.90 range to make the US team so that's a moot point for Americans.
My last topic of discussion is the one false start rule. I am STRONGLY against disqualification and removal from the race because of a split second lapse in concentration. Again, all that training and the hopes and dreams are dashed because of a false move or twitch. Just not right. Usain Bolt false started and was DQed in the World Championships. I don't remember what year. Linford Christie got DQed in Atlanta in 1996. His reaction time was measured at 0.086. Just 14 THOUSANDTH of a second slower and it would have been legal at 0.10. Christie had a legitimate beef IMO.
I do believe that now, you can run under protest. That is, you are not removed from the race but you will be DQed at the end unless the protest is upheld. My proposal is a penalty. A tenth of a second is added to your time, which is significant. You could cross the finish line first but take home the Bronze. Still, that's better than the alternative and guards against athletes trying to jump the start by guessing the gun time. Especially in the 100, a perfect start can and does make the difference in the outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment