Epic Failure

Okaro didn't have either an OQT or OCT to my knowledge, so I don't think she was ever in line for an individual berth. Guy getting the 100m fly spot is interesting. Means Litchfield has to be in one of the relay teams, which seems a slightly risky strategy. Shame that Freya isn't fit for individual slots. Hopefully that's more the result of focusing on the relays than anything else. Whittle getting the slot in the 100m free seems awfully fortunate.

Okoye has hit the UKA Q this season, at the DL in Doha. The current form criterion says athletes have to be "at or near" the standard between April 1st and June 30th. So he has done that. He's also been "near" on other occasions. Obviously that criterion is there to give them an out, so to speak. But I don't think he's that much at risk. Personally, I'd take everyone. But even if that wasn't going to happen, of those likely to miss out, Norris, Purchase and Hunt in the 200m are no brainers for me. Hunt being in the 200m means that you can select Lansiquot in the 100m with no issue as well as Henry and Philip in the relay squad. Which allows Dina/Daryll more rest if they get to finals. As it is, assuming that we select Lansiquot, only 2 of the 3 others would be selected. Which also means we have to use one of Daryll or Dina in the heats (unless we use an out of form Bianca Williams).

Apologies for the crude working, but thought this might be of interest. This is a list of all those in ranking spots as of today, those that are likely to be accepted under the policy and info about those I know are injured. It's been said before but Norris and Purchase are both pretty damning exclusions if it happens.

Holly Mills is not even close to being competitive at the moment. Don't see her or Niamh Emerson ever fulfulling the clear potential both have for fitness reasons. Given that O'Dowda is 6th on the UK all time list with her performance in Rome, I don't see them wanting to let her go.

has been best at 3 of the last 4 (London the only exception). usually a close second. Don't see any reason to change that order myself.

From a pov, Tom Pidcock in the MTB is probably up there. In that sport with the risk of injury/puncture there is never a guarantee but if he gets around on the bike without incident, I don't see him being beaten. in diving is usually a lock for most of the events. Summer in the 400IM is about as sure bet as you can get.

Not officially confirmed yet (team is due to be announced on Friday), but unless UK Athletics ignore their own policy that they have needlessly put in place, it's going to happen. So if Zaltos stays in that spot in the rankings, he should move up into the qualifying spots once it all shakes out.

Relatively quiet day for us whilst everyone else is going crazy and spending, but we resigned #88 for another season, so I'm happy.

1. At home, cursing the world as I wake up at 3am thanks to my timezone. 2. , , - all 3 for family reasons essentially. I also will support any athlete over the age of 35, because I feel a kinship based on aging bones.

77.50m. So neither Norris nor Ikeji will make it. Frustratingly.

I would be shocked if they *were* selected. Once you start carving out exceptions for those who are close, you lose the justification to reject those further away. History has shown they won't take close examples - they didn't take Lina Nielsen to the Worlds last year and she was only 0.06 off the Q mark.

I'm aware. That's why I said "they'll definitely get picked if fit". Think of my list as one of those who qualified as a result of their performances this weekend. I'm not 100% convinced on Lansiquot. She's likely to get in but they could decide her form has been a bit iffy and just put Hunt, Philip and Henry in the relay instead, along with Dina and Daryll. Of course, if UKA weren't idiots who sabotage themselves by setting daft standards, they could have selected Hunt in the 200m, freeing up a spot in the relay that way.

That works in a handful of events where we have strength in depth. But it is an approach that can have a bunch of downsides, some obvious, some less obvious. Firstly, it's worth noting that the WA Q are intended to be difficult to achieve - they want half the field to qualify on time, the other half on ranking. So using the ranking isn't an easy way out. Let's use Anna Purchase as an example. She has neither the WA nor the UKA standard. However, she is ranked 16th in the world. On top of that, she was 8th at the Euros this month. And was 11th in Budapest. She's not going to taken to Paris. Instead less talented athletes from other countries will take that spot. Is that really what we want? If so, why are we taking, say, Amber Anning? After all, she's only 9th on time this year, so she might not make a final, right? Do we only take people we think are going to get medals? Secondly, you never know when an athlete might break out. Let's use the French heptathlete from Rome, Auriana Lazraq-Khlass. She went into that competition with a PB of just over 6200. She then went crazy in Rome, winning a silver medal and setting a PB by 400 points. I mention that because last year Jade O'Dowda missed Budapest by a small margin like that because UKA wanted a higher score, even though she had a WA invite. Who is to say that she could not have had a breakout last year if she was selected? If athletics was so predictable, we wouldn't watch it. Thirdly, there is the argument about experience. Sophie Hitchon went to several World and Olympic meets before she finally broke through for her medal. Likewise Holly Bradshaw. Can it not be said that the experience of the unsuccesful champs might have paid off eventually with the successful ones? Finally, and this one is more subjective, but I firmly believe we should take all those who qualify, especially in events where we don't have strength in depth. What if seeing someone represent your country in, say, the shot were to inspire a young kid? If we stop sending those athletes, we risk the next generation being uninspired. Representing one's country should be something we encourage. This policy does nothing but discourage people. It's a terrible policy in my opinion.

The first team they introduced the limit was Eugene, where it was Q or ranking if the ranking was inside the top 32. That team size was 80 Last year, they adopted even more stringent standards. The team dropped to 55. For Paris it will be about the same - somewhere between 50-60 I reckon. It's a sizeable drop. Will it impact our medal count? Probably not. Might it discourage athletes? Could it have a knock on effect, especially in events we don't have strength in depth? Absolutely.

UK Athletics Champs 2024 The following are essentially 100% qualified. They finished top 2 at the trials, and have either a WA Q, or have a UKA Q and are safely in a ranking spot, unless there are some crazy results this weekend elsewhere. Men 100m - Louis Hinchliffe, Jeremiah Azu 400m - Charlie Dobson 800m - Ben Pattison, Max Burgin 1500m - Neil Gourley, George Mills 5000m - Patrick Dever 400m Hurdles - Alistair Chalmers - the luckiest man in Britain - was DQed for a false start, ran under protest, ran the Q time and was reinstated later! Long Jump - Jacob Fincham-Dukes Discus - Nicholas Percy Shot Put - Scott Lincoln Women 100m - Daryll Neita 200m - Dina Asher-Smith, Daryll Neita 400m - Amber Anning, Laviai Nielsen 800m - Phoebe Gill, Jemma Reekie 1500m - Georgia Bell, Laura Muir 100m Hurdles - Cindy Sember 3000m SC - Elizabeth Bird High Jump - Morgan Lake Pole Vault - Molly Caudrey There are others who will definitely be picked if fit but did not compete this weekend (or did not run their chosen event), such as Josh Kerr, Matt Hudson-Smith and Keely Hodgkinson. Then there are others who didn't get top 2 here but have the Q (Imani Lansiquot for example) - they will be sweating this week. Between those athletes and relay runners I expect the final team size to be around 55-60. Then there are a chunk of people who will get a WA invite but which will be rejected by UKA. Because 'reasons'. Sigh.

The UK standard is 64.90, which he has hit several times. I didn't include him in the list from yesterday because I was trying just to include the ones who were definite.

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.

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.

UK Athletics Champs 2024 Day 1 Men 100m - Louis Hinchliffe, Jeremiah Azu Long Jump - Jacob Fincham-Dukes Discus - Nicholas Percy Shot Put - Scott Lincoln Women 100m - Daryll Neita 100m Hurdles - Cindy Sember 3000m SC - Elizabeth Bird Pole Vault - Molly Caudrey Some of the above are 100% guaranteed, some have met the UK Athletics criteria but will be waiting for the WA invite to be 100% sure but I'm including them here. There are other athletes who either have the Q but who weren't competing here (Dina Asher-Smith in the 100m for example), or are in an event where UKA - in their infinite wisdom - don't accept the invites. Sigh.

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).

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.

Assuming that I believe that what you are saying is 100% true - and I have my doubts considering your track record of accuracy in some of your claims is...not the best - it still doesn't change the central point that I'm making, which is that the evidence doesn't support that it will make a blind bit of difference. I'd love to be wrong. I'd love for the public to be up in arms and force a change. But it ain't gonna happen.

It was last year. And the year before. The British Champs aren't even on normal TV anymore. The idea that there will be some kind of mass public outcry is not supported by any evidence.

The policy is the same that it has been for a couple of years now. The athletes not selected will complain, nothing will happen. It will be forgotten about by the general public in a week.

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.