GB Athletics

[Epic Failure 359]

1 minute ago, mpjmcevoy said:

I wonder is there the possibility for someone who has a ranking invite, but not a Q, to beat the Q in London? Wa/IOC will ignore it for deadline, but might UKA accept the ranking invite on the basis Q is now met....

I believe that the invites have to be accepted before London. I think the only DL that happens before that deadline is Paris. Monaco/London are too late.

 

The only way that a late Q might have an impact - at least to my eyes - would be 1) in an event we have someone announced who pulls out and frees up the spot, or 2) WA/IOC want to make sure fields are full and they extend more invites closer to the time after withdrawls from other countries.

[Orangehair43 285]

28 minutes ago, Epic Failure said:

I believe that the invites have to be accepted before London. I think the only DL that happens before that deadline is Paris. Monaco/London are too late.

 

The only way that a late Q might have an impact - at least to my eyes - would be 1) in an event we have someone announced who pulls out and frees up the spot, or 2) WA/IOC want to make sure fields are full and they extend more invites closer to the time after withdrawls from other countries.

I think World Athletics should publicly announce who they have invited. Then national associations have to openly reject someone’s invite. 

[Epic Failure 359]

WA *do* announce publicly who they have invited. That's what the Road to Paris is.

 

And national associations *do* announce publicly what invitations they have rejected when they announce the team and the people with invites are either in it (accepted) or not in it (rejected).

[Orangehair43 285]

34 minutes ago, Epic Failure said:

WA *do* announce publicly who they have invited. That's what the Road to Paris is.

 

And national associations *do* announce publicly what invitations they have rejected when they announce the team and the people with invites are either in it (accepted) or not in it (rejected).

Only hidden in their website. But if they tweeted these are all the people invited and named them it then looks even more petty when associations reject them.

[Epic Failure 359]

It's hardly hidden. It takes like 5 mins for anyone to work out who has been rejected.

 

And it isn't practical to tweet every single athlete name, considering that's several hundred.

 

And, again, who cares? If the public cared, they would be up in outrage when it happened for Eugene. Or Budapest. Anyone who cares already knows what the situation is. So what will happen is that the athletes will complain. Then there'll be like, one day, when people might say "this is terrible, somebody should do something" and then it is forgotten.

 

Unless the athletes actually start taking legal action, the story will blow over quickly. And even if they do, it'll probably still be a footnote to most people.

[Rafa Maciel 1,672]

6 hours ago, Epic Failure said:

Nah, they are happy with those numbers. It's small enough that it reduces cost and team size, but is big enough for them to pretend that they do care and that the system is a successful one.

I don't think cost is a factor when it comes to the Olympics as the costs of sending the team, support staff etc. are borne by the BOA as opposed to UK Athletics. 

[Epic Failure 359]

2 hours ago, Rafa Maciel said:

I don't think cost is a factor when it comes to the Olympics as the costs of sending the team, support staff etc. are borne by the BOA as opposed to UK Athletics. 

Directly, sure. But there has to be a point at which that kicks in and before which any costs are covered by the governing body. Otherwise they could argue that anything was an Olympic cost. Like, the recent Euros were expressly said in the team announcement to be used to support athletes plans for Paris. However, I doubt that any of the costs for that would be covered by the BOA, right?

 

So whilst you are right that some of the direct costs are not going to on UKA's head, I find it very hard to believe that it isn't part of their overall approach to all teams, given that everybody knows they have no money.

[Rafa Maciel 1,672]

51 minutes ago, Epic Failure said:

Directly, sure. But there has to be a point at which that kicks in and before which any costs are covered by the governing body. Otherwise they could argue that anything was an Olympic cost. Like, the recent Euros were expressly said in the team announcement to be used to support athletes plans for Paris. However, I doubt that any of the costs for that would be covered by the BOA, right?

 

So whilst you are right that some of the direct costs are not going to on UKA's head, I find it very hard to believe that it isn't part of their overall approach to all teams, given that everybody knows they have no money.

My argument was purely that the cost of sending the team to an Olympic games falls to the BOA - preparing the athletes for the games absolutely falls to the national federations. Having said that, given the games are only a few weeks away, those costs have already been incurred so unlikely to be much more in the way of additional costs for UKA.  

 

I'm not disputing that UKA is financially challenged (and grossly mismanaged) but at the same time, I can't think of a recent major event that UKA have not sent a decent sized squad to with the exception of race walking. The biggest impact we've seen from the financial situation has been that the number of athletics events that the UK is hosting has been reduced to bare minimum.

 

The biggest impact on the squad selection approach has been brought about by the hiring of Jack Buckner. I've no doubt that the introduction of the limited number of places on the team for the Europeans was brought about by him. Given that was the system he used at British Swimming, we probably shouldn't be too surprised by it. I don't think the policy works particularly well or is fair, but until the bigger named athletes start using their platform and speaking out against the selection policy then we're stuck with it. 

[Orangehair43 285]

2 hours ago, Rafa Maciel said:

My argument was purely that the cost of sending the team to an Olympic games falls to the BOA - preparing the athletes for the games absolutely falls to the national federations. Having said that, given the games are only a few weeks away, those costs have already been incurred so unlikely to be much more in the way of additional costs for UKA.  

 

I'm not disputing that UKA is financially challenged (and grossly mismanaged) but at the same time, I can't think of a recent major event that UKA have not sent a decent sized squad to with the exception of race walking. The biggest impact we've seen from the financial situation has been that the number of athletics events that the UK is hosting has been reduced to bare minimum.

 

The biggest impact on the squad selection approach has been brought about by the hiring of Jack Buckner. I've no doubt that the introduction of the limited number of places on the team for the Europeans was brought about by him. Given that was the system he used at British Swimming, we probably shouldn't be too surprised by it. I don't think the policy works particularly well or is fair, but until the bigger named athletes start using their platform and speaking out against the selection policy then we're stuck with it. 

Weather it’s true or not Athletes feel as if it’s cost cutting - particularly unpopular is the accepting invites in some events but not others as that is seen as trying to get a specific number going and hide some of the issues.

 

Also if leads to some athletes being higher ranked in their event and having their invite rejected while the highest ranked British athlete in another event is lower ranked but goes because they in an event where they want someone in so will accept an invite or have a UKA standard that is lower and more achievable than the one created for their event. It’s not like swimming where the UK standard is based on a set 100% constant formula. 

Edited June 30, 2024 by Orangehair43

[Olympicsnell 332]

9 hours ago, Epic Failure said:

It's hardly hidden. It takes like 5 mins for anyone to work out who has been rejected.

 

And it isn't practical to tweet every single athlete name, considering that's several hundred.

 

And, again, who cares? If the public cared, they would be up in outrage when it happened for Eugene. Or Budapest. Anyone who cares already knows what the situation is. So what will happen is that the athletes will complain. Then there'll be like, one day, when people might say "this is terrible, somebody should do something" and then it is forgotten.

 

Unless the athletes actually start taking legal action, the story will blow over quickly. And even if they do, it'll probably still be a footnote to most people.

This is kind of where i stand, i am a HUGE athletics fan, but when UKA leave an athlete at home who probably wont make a final, probably struggle for a semi spot, i am none to botherd. 

 

UKA have their standard and that is what the athletes should aim for, not a lesser qualification standard that just gets you to the show. If this was GB of old (92...96) then sure, send as many as possible and just be happy to be there, but GB now are a global powerhouse of sport and the athletes should be pushed to achieve higher standards of qualification. Some athletes will be upset to miss out, but GB have layed out exactly what you need to do to qualify, if you give them the option of leaving you at home, then do better.