Epic Failure

So, a nice quiet start to the Games, we can all agree right? I take the blame for Argentina's loss. I have them as gold medal winners in my predictions, which is a kiss of death for any chances they had.

Just for info, I went and browsed a horsey message board. They are 90% shocked and appalled, and that's a crowd that is...more understanding of the 'need' to 'train' horses in a manner similar to this. Whilst the video was less distressing than I worried it could be, it's still someone whipping a clearly distressed animal. When the best that can be said is "it's not as awful as I worried it could be", it's not a good luck. I also see from the BBC report today that a Danish reserve was replaced after a training video came to light. Different level of impact to their team but at least that shows that this is a more widespread issue and maybe a reckoning is coming. Put me in the camp that would not be worried if we lost this sport.

They aren't the only team who could benefit but they are consistently in the top 5 or 6, so a weakened GBR team undoubtedly would help. GBR's chances are not gone but are weakened.

I'm far less concerned with the alleged political machinations behind the release than I am with the actions being alleged. If Dujardin doesn't do it in the first place, there's no video to release. If what she is alleged to have done is common practice across nations then the sooner we can say good riddance to the whole sordid thing, the better in my book.

I mean even if it is the Dutch leaking it for nakedly partisan reasons, it still doesn't excuse the actions. I was happily on my moral high horse about their selection issues before now. Unfortunately it seems that high horse got like that through some...disreputable training practices.

That 2008 event was just carnage! 8 of the 16 teams didn't get the baton round legally, and then the Russians would be DQed later as you say. Fun for the chaos enthusiast in me, a missed opportunity for the British athletics fan in me!

The women have won silver a couple of times in 'true' races (ie no DNF or DQs), beating the US in 2019 and Jamaica in 2017. So they have form to upset one of them. And I agree that another silver here is not an unreasonable target on season's form. I completely agree with you that I think can get down to a 41.2 or 41.3 with a perfect race. But my worry is that the can field the same team as Budapest if they want to (Davis-Terry-Thomas-Richardson), and that team ran 41.03. But that's all on paper! It's certainly exciting to think about the what ifs and hope that they pull it off! To the men, they beat both in my brain in 2017. I know Bolt pulled up but if Coleman couldn't reel in NMB, I don't see 2017 version Bolt doing it from even further back. Safe to say, however, that the men do...not have the same likelihood to upset on current form.

Yes, they are, with a sizeable 'but' to follow. It's a sprint relay. Obviously those go wrong pretty often (hopefully not for GBR this time though; keeping all things crossed!). And obviously basic foot speed - whilst being important - doesn't translate perfectly into success. However, the bare facts are that the US has 10 women who have run faster than DAS or Darryl this year, and that doesn't include Gabby Thomas who likely would be on the 3rd bend. Their depth is just crazy. Jamaica has 4 quicker than us but even they look a class below the US this year - there are 3 Americans who have run quicker than any of the Jamaicans. So whilst gold isn't completely out of reach, it would still be a huge shock and likely require the US to have a mishap of some sort. beating this current version of Jamaica would surprise me less however.

It's not guaranteed that Bird will be used in the 4x2, given that he's in the individual 400m. Depending on machinations elsewhere, it could be the relay heat that GBR put Joe Litchfield in. Doubtful given the risk vs reward but it's not impossible.

Personally I believe that the best chance of gold is probably Matt in the individual. So I wouldn't do anything to upset that. We just don't know how other nations are going to approach it. The US, even with an understrength team, is probably as much of a challenge as Matt faces in the individual. They just have so much strength in depth. But if we accept that a Matt-less GBR has silver at its peak, that possible silver is surely a greater chance than any of the others have in the individual? I get that an athlete has to be confident, but they surely should be realistic as well. I can only speak about what I would do but if I were Charlie/Amber/Laviai, I'd be chomping at the bit for the mixed and hoping that the other bloke shows up in halfway decent form. The squad members are better off in the heats of the single sex relays, to get us into the final. There's more leeway there to get to the final.

Dina's time today was the 5th fastest time this season of those who will be in Paris. It would not shock me at all if the top 3 today in London was the top 3 in Paris.

If you don't think Dobson is a realistic medal contender, I'd argue that Anning isn't then either. Charlie is ranked 10th in the world this year. Amber is ranked 9th. I'd say those 2 are about the same. In terms of time, Charlie is actually about a quarter of a second closer to the podium than Amber. Personally I'd swap the men's relays around. The 4x100m if they get the baton round cleanly should be on the podium. I don't see 3 teams better than us. Obviously you can never guarantee the baton going round with any sprint relay but if we are purely talking raw speed, I think you probably would put us on a podium with the US and Italy. On the other hand the 4x4 team has two outstanding legs and then 2 slightly iffy ones. They could be right up there but it wouldn't be crazy if we were in a tough battle for minor medals. If we send out even close to our first choice mixed team (ie a team with Charlie, Amber, Laviai and AN Other) they are strong medal contenders, but obviously as per our discussion that's an unknown. Finally, I'd add Holly Bradshaw into the outside bet camp. She jumped 4.70 last week, which is nothing special but is getting around the distance where the medals have been decided in recent years. I'd also add Hughes into the outside bet category, for his past exploits. 10 flat in what is essentially his first race of the season is solid enough.

The validity of entry lists was shown by the U18 team earlier today, when we substituted someone in even later than the official start list (presuming they had a last minute injury)! That being said, that would be the team you would put out if you were thinking "we don't really care about this". Which would be weird for a federation that seems to be prioritising results over everything these days.

Definitely not out of the question for the 800m, although I guess we haven't yet really seen Phoebe have to deal with rounds. I look at her being the bonus package this time with no expectations (but obviously a lot of potential). Jemma and Keely should both be delighted with that and both should be harbouring very realistic expectations of a medal, possibly a 1-2 as you say. Bell beating Laura so comfortably will have raised a few eyebrows, although I guess the question will be whether Georgia can do that in the longer distance as well. Either way both should be in the minor medal hunt. The most fascinating thing for me is the choice of 400m relay teams. MHS obviously has earned the right to focus on the individual but will Charlie and Amber be thinking about their individual or will they commit to the mixed? Feels like the latter is the better medal chance but understandable if they are thinking individual first. Jessie and Victoria both putting down SBs is helpful for the depth on the women's side as well. That team really is spoilt for choice.

I don't think there's much danger of Molly crashing out at a low height. Even in her recent 'struggles' she's still be jumping over 4.65 pretty much every time, which is likely to be top 8 no matter what. She's also been top 3 in every competition that she's taken part in this year, no matter the height she achieved. So on that basis alone, she should still be favoured for a medal. An interesting afternoon to say the least.

Agreed that there's no great place for him. I just think that the 4x1 is the worst option. I take your earlier point about the likely order of relays preference and that impacting their thinking. But I think we could get away with him in the mixed medley probably fine. Maybe even the 4x2, although there's more at risk there if that goes wrong. Personally, I'd put him in the mixed, then the men's medley, then 4x2, then 4x1 myself. Either way, I'd not have both him and Jack in the same heat, whatever else happens. To me that just seems like asking for trouble.

It's such a bizarre idea that I can't believe it will happen. He came 15th in the heats at the British Champs! We'll have 7 other swimmers in Paris who swam quicker than that in the same set of heats!

I like to do the reverse and imagine what our team would look like if we still had the Empire at its peak.

Thankfully not a problem I'll have, unless I use a VPN. Unfortunately, I have to put up with the US commentators. Which is always fun.

Sorry, I realise that I worded my response poorly. I wasn't disputing what you were saying was true. After you posted I went to the WA website and looked at the various listings. So I wasn't doubting you. I was just saying that if the GBR coaches actually follow through with that in the 4x100m (as opposed to it just being a place holder/incorrect early form from WA), I might cry. I very much hope I'm wrong but I have serious doubts that a 4x100m team with both of them in it would qualify. Which would be a huge shame as I think that we absolutely would be in medal contention in the final if we got there.

Cost cutting at the Beeb has reached new levels...doesn't even cover travel expenses... https://www.bbc.com/sport/articles/cv2g4led1rwo

I tend to be the same but in reverse . I'm naturally pessimistic but I tend to always look for the counter point. Which makes me become more optimistic.

Obviously form will play a part but Richards has consistently been faster than Scott over 100m the last couple of years. Even with Duncan's relay prowess, it would be something of a shock if we made that change. Not completely unlikely, obviously.

So I have to defend myself here. My initial comment in this portion of the thread was simply saying that both you and CB had missed Tom from your lists of possible medalists. Nothing more. There was no negativity there. You responded defending why you had excluded him (fair enough) and I responded with why I think he shouldn't be excluded (also, I would argue fair enough). I don't class that as splitting hairs for hairs sake. I don't believe that you are disagreeing for disagreeing's sake/trying to put me in my place and I'd hope that you would afford me the same courtesy in assessing my motives. Any negativity that has come out in this discussion has been as a result of us both further defending our respective positions - which are at odds with each other obviously - and which has led to each of us simply digging in further, so to speak. Which, again, I do not dispute my part in. But I would say - and I mean this with all due respect - it takes two to tango. This was hardly a one sided discussion. It would be a shame if you decided not to continue posting. I don't have to agree with someone's positions but that doesn't mean that I don't want to hear the opposing views to my own.

I don't dispute your detective work but if they sacrifice the men's 4x1 like that, I might actually cry. Picking both him and Jack in that seems a risk too far, especially with Cohoon, Dean and Whittle all being there.