Athletes who will miss Summer Olympic Games Paris 2024 Road to Paris 2024

[dodge 903]

52 minutes ago, mpjmcevoy said:

My strong understanding is that the death match 3-and-done US policy is directly a result of trying to avoid litigation - a real fear that a disgruntled athlete in third could grind everything to a halt simply by picking a 'friendly' court - there's a Jarndyce v Jarndyce quality to US litigation, and the time frames are of course dreadful.

And it wouldn’t just be a disgruntled athlete, it would be adidas v Nike etc 

[Josh 7,797]

 Elaine Thompson-Herah (athletics)  

 

Reigning Olympic Champion in the women’s 100m and 200m.

 

Small achilles tendon tear. 

 

https://x.com/TrackGazette/status/1806123081670258964

 

[heywoodu 13,813]

On 6/24/2024 at 5:11 PM, Faramir said:

Although athletes like to spin it this way, no one is stopped for a missed test, there needs to be 3 in the span of 12 months or less

And tons of athletes are often on 1 or even 2 missed tests, which can happen for perfectly normal reasons. Athletes can spin whatever they want, but once you miss a 3rd, that's very shady at best (because who in their right mind would not take extreme caution every single day, double checking their whereabouts information multiple times a day, and so on?).

[heywoodu 13,813]

On 6/25/2024 at 9:02 AM, dodge said:

It’s cruel for sure, but there’s too many good US athletes for most events and there will always be accusations of bias if they do it any other way 

One can't accuse anyone of bias if the third quota is filled in by, say, the non-qualified athlete with the best time/result in period X. That should be very straightforward.

 

[heywoodu 13,813]

Also: it might be useful if this thread goes back to what it was originally, a compilation of who will miss the Olympics due to injury, illness and so on. Athletes who simply failed to qualify despite being healthy are a bit of a different story I'd say (and could be collected in a different thread).

[Josh 7,797]

1 hour ago, heywoodu said:

Also: it might be useful if this thread goes back to what it was originally, a compilation of who will miss the Olympics due to injury, illness and so on. Athletes who simply failed to qualify despite being healthy are a bit of a different story I'd say (and could be collected in a different thread).

I changed it because some users were starting to go off topic, but I agree 

 

Edit: Just not sure where the other replies are supposed to go

Edited Thursday at 07:23 AM by Josh

[dodge 903]

1 hour ago, heywoodu said:

One can't accuse anyone of bias if the third quota is filled in by, say, the non-qualified athlete with the best time/result in period X. That should be very straightforward.

 

But who decides period X? What if someone has a great time early in the window, but is completely out of form by the end? There are holes to be picked in whatever format is chosen 

[heywoodu 13,813]

38 minutes ago, dodge said:

But who decides period X? What if someone has a great time early in the window, but is completely out of form by the end? There are holes to be picked in whatever format is chosen 

Make 'period X' the Olympic qualification period. Doesn't World Athletics have a set period in which times are counted? Make it equal to that, then.

 

Great time early in the window and out of form later to me seems similar to being a midfield athlete, having an amazing day at the trials and qualify, and then go straight back to your usual level of being a midfield athlete. That one is accepted, so the first one can be too. Make it a mix of both and both formats have a chance.

[dodge 903]

I guess I’m arguing that why would you change it to another system that has flaws?
 

If the idea is to get the “best team” or most likely to win medals, I don’t see see this as solving that. 

 

If they can find the perfect system, great, but whatever they choose will have its issues so I don’t see any sense in them changing it

[Faramir 154]

There would never be any progress if people refused to change the old way unless the new way is perfect and without flaws. Now there's even world rankings that can be used, they could use the 2+1 system only for athletes who are in top 10 or only if the best American in the World Ranking misses out or create their own ranking with the average of the best 5 results or have a series of 3 selected events acting as trials. 

USATF is imo well aware that with these trials they are bound to not bring the best team to the Games (some top athletes will always have a bad day), but since they win enough medals anyway, they value the drama and the consequent big exposure to the public more than the lost medals.