Epic Failure

Yes but what I'm disagreeing with is where you are saying the certain date should be. To use your job example, if you accept a job offer but decide the day before you are due to start you don't want it anymore, you won't get punished for that decision. You just no longer have the job. I don't see why that should be different for athletes. For clarity, I'm saying that an athlete pulling out 3 days before these champs is absolutely doing it in time. There should be no repercussions to that athlete for doing so. If there are *any* repercussions at all - and I'm not convinced there should be - they should be to the federation to cover the cost of travel for the replacement.

In what sense? I won't speak for the Canadians, but I suspect that many of them would say hockey (by which they mean the ice variety) comes above everything else and by quite a long way. The US because of its sheer population size was always likely to catch up and overtake Canada in the 'commonwealth' sports when they started paying attention to them. Rugby is an interesting one, because the US has a great university tradition for rugby. But it hasn't previously been able to build on that in any wider sense.

Although I'm always a bit loathe to judge a performance until both sides have batted (as it could be the pitch rather than anything else), Sri Lanka have been hit and miss in T20 in recent years. At the last WC they lost fairly comprehensively to all the top tier sides they played and also lost to Namibia as well.

But how do you know in advance? Like, to use GBR as an example. Dobson and MHS are the only 400m runners qualified as of *right now*. But the qualification window runs until June 30th. The GBR champs/trials are 28-29th. Suppose another 3 athletes were to run the qualification time at those champs, or before it. How would you decide the team? For GBR the system has been top 2 at trials/champs go no matter what, as long as they have the qualifying time. And a 3rd discretionary spot that can be applied where the selectors want it (in case of injury at the trials etc). I'm just puzzled about how other nations do it if you don't decide it based on performance at a championship/trial - are you all just writing your athletes off?

I've never known someone who accepted a job offer and then turned it down to be actually punished for doing so. Sure, that employer might not offer them a future job but that's a different matter. If you want to have a system where you get banned from a future EC having withdrawn at the last minute, maybe that's a way forward. Banning someone from other events that aren't ECs seems weird. Frankly, I'm fine with some sort of fine for the national federation, as it is them who are in control of the entries. Just not the individual athlete. Personally, I still think that the easiest - and best - solution is a standby list. That's what a university would do. That's what someone advertising a job would have. Again, I think that there has to be a degree of reasonableness here. We're still 3 days before any event starts, let alone a specific event that might happen later in the programme. There's nowhere in Europe that you couldn't get to Rome in 3 days from. There's no good reason to not have a back up list. Hell, make the withdrawing federation pay the travel and hotel cost of the replacement athlete. Problem solved.

Most European countries that I'm aware of have their national championships in late June-early July. I'm not sure how many of them are actually trials but certainly the UK champs are always the World/Olympic trials in the years where those events are happening. I'm absolutely in favour of athletes having a European Championship generally for good levels of competition. I just think the timing has been problematic every year that they've had it since they moved from a 4 year cycle to a 2 year cycle which meant that it started colliding with the Olympics in 2012. It would have been better if they had it colliding with the Worlds, frankly. The Olympics are the peak of the sport still. Then the Worlds and then the Europeans. If you are going to have 2 of the 3 happen in the same year, make it the 2 latter events.

If I buy a ticket to an event with limited capacity and then decide the week before that I want to do something else, that's on me. I lose my entry fee but that's my decision. If there is an entry fee for this, I fully support GBR being fined for it. What you are advocating is that I should be additionally punished for doing so. That's ridiculous. If someone else wants to go in my place, I should be able to sell my ticket, as most things let you do these days. Or the venue can decide to let someone else in if they see that there is space. Which is what I'm suggesting should happen.

I agree it isn't ideal. But I have limited sympathy for the Champs themselves or any kind of rule they put in like that. It's insane that we're having European Champs 6 weeks before the Olympics, and 2-3 weeks before national trials for many teams. If they were desperate to have Euros every 2 years, they could at least put it *after* the Olympics. Otherwise they are making athletes risk injury here ahead of what could be the single biggest event of their lives. I don't blame an athlete if they are unsure whether they want to risk that. And, if they had a list of replacements like I'm suggesting, it wouldn't matter. It's not like Hudson-Smith withdrew on the morning of the race. There's plenty enough time to get someone to Rome to fill that spot.

It's a bit of a shame that there isn't a formal replacement list for athletes anyway. Would it really be difficult to have, say, 4 athletes per event on notice that they are first in line for a place in case of withdrawal? We've seen today several GBR athletes pull out, whether it is injury (Hughes) or a change of plans to completely go for Paris (Hudson-Smith). If the next eligible athlete in a formal list could get to Rome before Friday, why not let them try? Better that than an empty lane. Obviously there has to be a cut off time *eventually*, but we're still 4 days away from the first event of the week. I find it difficult to believe that anyone in Europe couldn't get to Rome in 4 days.

It's really not helped in an Olympic year. It's a tough sell to the Beeb to fork out for it. On a related, note, some changes to the GB & NI team announced this morning. Out - Hughes, Hudson-Smith, Lansiquot, Mitchell-Blake In - Sibbons (4x100m relay) Hughes was not a shock after he pulled up in Jamaica. Hudson-Smith says he's just prioritising Paris, which is fair enough. No specifics about Imani or Nethaniel though. In less dramatic news, Neita is focussing on the 200m rather than doing the double. And Amy Hunt is getting an individual run in the 100m, as well as her relay duties.

EAA u turn on the French Federation Fuckup Sensible decision.

I mean, there's this page, which does imply that they plan to have some live coverage - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002050g/episodes/guide Whether that is just a filler page and nothing will come of it later in the week remains to be seen obviously.

Because Kramer is probably one of the better chances of a home win on the track and meet organisers always prefer to try and send a crowd home with a nice local performance if possible.

I mean, if we're talking about poor decisions by EAA we could be here all day. The byes in the sprint events bother me far more than one decathlete getting an unearned opportunity.

Possible 3rd choice - as a 2 time Olympic champion, she's not stressed too much if she does or doesn't make it. If she does, great. If she doesn't, well, she's got those other golds to console her!

That's a coincidence. It'll be only be an actual conspiracy if they let Habz and Bedard in. Or the French heptathletes.

That doesn't change the fact that they are clearly not just doing what they can to help the 'big country', which is what you said they were doing. They are helping one athlete. That's it. They couldn't care about the other less famous athletes, whether they are French, Swedish or Austrian. It's athlete specific bias, not country bias.

She hasn't competed at all this year. Nothing since last July. It'll be interesting to see how she approaches Rome, assuming she's fit enough to get through the 7 events. She probably doesn't need to push too hard - her WR in the pentathlon from the Euros last March would count towards a ranking place if she is able to put something competitive in place here.

I think there's a difference between one team lying and a governing body amending its rules at short notice that might provide a benefit to certain people. The latter is...distasteful. The former is cheating.

Again, if they are *just* doing it to favour the big country, why have Habz and Bedard not been allowed in then?

I mean, technically, they changed the rules to allow Mayer in. They amended the competition regulations on 10th May specifically to allow this. So in the most technical of senses, they haven't broken any rules. They've just shown that the rules aren't really worth much...

I mean, they haven't rewarded France for fucking up with the hept, nor for not getting Habz entered (who is probably a much better medal prospect than Mayer right now). So I don't think that they are just somehow pro-France. They are pro-Mayer.

I mean, if I'm being honest, I'll be amazed if he even finishes the first day. If Mayer were to perform well enough here to get a place in Paris/medal, I've no problem with it. It would show that he is still good enough to be at the Olympics. Getting any athlete to the end of any combined events is a miracle in itself. It's the one event where I just support all the athletes who do it, no matter whether they are from my country or others. I'm hoping Nafi can do something similar in the hept. I accept that others will have a different view and I respect that.

I have no problem with the Mayer decision. I have a big problem with the other decision. I'm just viewing them as separate issues. If the result of Mayer not going would be that the hept field would be the full 24, I would support that. But we both know that won't be the case.

Again, I've no problem with adding Mayer on his own. Yes, he probably shouldn't be there. Yes, it is sentimental and they are trying to do a favour to him/the Olympics. If he were taking the spot of someone else, I'd think it was terribly unjustified. But nobody really loses for him being there. But the fact of the matter is that they aren't going to put the heptathletes in - whether the French, Swedish or Austrian - if Mayer isn't there. There would just be 24 men and 22 women. Everyone is losing there and that's not going to change whether Mayer is there or not.