UKA selection standards for the world champs

[CAML]

I've made a list of 16 athletes from the field and multi-events, who if everything goes right, could qualify. That won't happen, I'd venture 8 or 9, and maybe no heptathletes.

[sidelined]

I see no reason to think that the recent success of British Swimming has anything to do with the policies Buckner implemented. Mostly it just seems like the serendipity of having Peaty, Scott and Dean at the same time. Remember how excited everyone got about the so-called Swedish model in the era of Kluft?

To me, the NGB's job is to facilitate competition for athletes, not prevent it.

[philipo]

If someone comes in and blindly says ‘This worked in x sport so we’ll do it this way in athletics’ then yes I agree.

But if someone comes in and cherry picks the best elements of what’s worked elsewhere and applies then sensibly to athletics then I’m all in favour. We can be pretty insular as a sport and should be more receptive to fresh thinking. Buckner as an athletics man with experience of other sports ought to be well placed to do that (although may partly depend on exactly what objectives he’s been set).

Ref the standards themselves, some are definitely tough, others less so and all must be seen in the context of current and previous talent.

As Philipo implies the 800 times of just under 1.45 and 2.00 aren’t that demanding in the super spikes age plus we happen to have the depth of talent to easily fill all the places.

In the field we won’t get near 85 and 63m javelin throwers. But at times in the past we could have and a good number of them. Unlikely to get any 2.32 HJs or 8.25 LJs but again in the past we could have fielded a couple in each event at times. Virtually every other sport improves over time, so unless we’re saying our stars were doped up to the eyeballs, the question is less about the standards and much more about why in several events we’re literally nowhere near as good as we were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Participation, coaching, investment……

Your last sentence is so thought provoking;were we all so clean one starts to wonder.

[philipo]

I see no reason to think that the recent success of British Swimming has anything to do with the policies Buckner implemented. Mostly it just seems like the serendipity of having Peaty, Scott and Dean at the same time. Remember how excited everyone got about the so-called Swedish model in the era of Kluft?

To me, the NGB's job is to facilitate competition for athletes, not prevent it.

Absolutely correct ; sheer coincidences of excellence in sport are regular in track and field and swimming to mention 2 sports
When that happens there has always been the usual ambitious people who.tell you it's all down to their ideas. coaching etc.

[Sovietvest]

Two questions for the posters who support these tougher standards:
1) Do you think these higher standards should apply to athletes of all nations? Should we eliminate the first two rounds of the sprints for example and just have the top 24 in each event at the OG and WCh?
2) Do you think it's fair that professional sportspeople, invited to a global championships, should be blocked by a governing body when that will directly impact their earnings for the year and future earning opportunities. (Personally, I think this is restraint of trade.

Perfectly reasonable to say 'Yes' to both - some people are bored by qualifying rounds and think only the very elite in athletics deserve to earn any money from the sport.

Personally I think this will hasten the sport's decline in the UK and we'll see a lot of very talented people drop out, particularly the late developers (people like Linford Christie, Jonathan Edwards and, er, Jack Buckner.)

[Chafford1]

I was thinking the same on restraint of trade. Just needs an athlete to crowdfund a legal challenge and UKA will probably back down given their lack of funding.

[Ladyloz]

And isn't restraint of trade one of the reasons that Lifetime bans for drug cheats aren't able to be implemented?

[philipo]

Perhaps Mystery will look at Lansiquots best performance last year which was 11.15 legally
. 77th best in the toplists
WTF has Kathie Cook goto do with it
She was outstanding
Lansiquot has way to go !!

[SprintRelayFan]

I’m also not sure comparisons to Kathy cook, or even kwayke are relevant given how much times have improved, shoes, tracks etc

[MysteryBrick]

The Kathy Cook point came up because Cook never ran 11.08, although obviously in a different era. The broader point is that standards that are so high they act as a blocker not an incentive are daft.

[philipo]

Crowdfunding? This country is turning into a litigious mess to keep lawyers rich
Crazy nonsense!

[Chafford1]

Not if World Athletics says you have the qualifying standard.

[larkim]

Personally I like the mix of the absolute quali standards plus the rankings. No system is perfect, but it provides a half decent mix of a guaranteed qualification status for those for whom the standard is well within reach, and a qualification opportunity for those who are just outside but consistent performers.

But I would like to see it paired with an obligation on NGBs to send athletes who are invited, unless the athlete themselves rules themselves out through injury or personal choice.

Maybe if £££ is the issue, allow for invitation places to be accepted based on a financial contribution from the athlete? If their future earnings are contingent on appearing, then making a contribution to recognise that their status is perhaps a little "lower" than the auto qualifiers might help. Or indeed some of the superstars might actually divert some of their cash to the rest of the team.

[Dundee42]

Is there not way we could make it that over the course of someones career that uk athletics would only accept an invite for each athlete a maximum of two times. Therefore we maybe don't demotivate them while progressing, but after two rankings invites it's higher standard/first two at trials or they don't go at all?

[Sovietvest]

Personally I like the mix of the absolute quali standards plus the rankings. No system is perfect, but it provides a half decent mix of a guaranteed qualification status for those for whom the standard is well within reach, and a qualification opportunity for those who are just outside but consistent performers.

But I would like to see it paired with an obligation on NGBs to send athletes who are invited, unless the athlete themselves rules themselves out through injury or personal choice.

Maybe if £££ is the issue, allow for invitation places to be accepted based on a financial contribution from the athlete? If their future earnings are contingent on appearing, then making a contribution to recognise that their status is perhaps a little "lower" than the auto qualifiers might help. Or indeed some of the superstars might actually divert some of their cash to the rest of the team.

I think this is where crowdfunding could come in, larkim. Rather than fund a legal claim and make lawyers rich, fans could crowdfund the amount of money needed to pay for an athlete's flight and accommodation to a major champs. That would embarrass UKA and bring the issue to wider public attention.

[Sovietvest]

Just a bit of fun .. . ..

If this system had been in place for LA1984, the Q time for 1500m would have been the set at 24th fastest time of the previous year - 3:36.2. Assuming a qualifying window opened in July 1983, guess who would not have achieved the qualifying time ;-)

[Sovietvest]

Perhaps Mystery will look at Lansiquots best performance last year which was 11.15 legally
. 77th best in the toplists
WTF has Kathie Cook goto do with it
She was outstanding
Lansiquot has way to go !!

Magdalena Lindner (currently ranked 49th on the Road To Budapest) will be delighted if UKA reject an invitation for Imani ;-).

[Occasional Hope]

Exactly. Every invite UKA reject means someone worse from gets to go instead

[Ursus]

Two questions for the posters who support these tougher standards:
1) Do you think these higher standards should apply to athletes of all nations? Should we eliminate the first two rounds of the sprints for example and just have the top 24 in each event at the OG and WCh?
2) Do you think it's fair that professional sportspeople, invited to a global championships, should be blocked by a governing body when that will directly impact their earnings for the year and future earning opportunities. (Personally, I think this is restraint of trade.

Perfectly reasonable to say 'Yes' to both - some people are bored by qualifying rounds and think only the very elite in athletics deserve to earn any money from the sport.

Personally I think this will hasten the sport's decline in the UK and we'll see a lot of very talented people drop out, particularly the late developers (people like Linford Christie, Jonathan Edwards and, er, Jack Buckner.)

Good post Soviet.

Standards. The standards should be universal, but the requirements should be changed so that they must be achieved, say, 3 times in the qualification period. Do that and most of the arguments about whether someone is worth a place fall away.

No, not only elite athletes should earn out of the sport. But anyone’s earnings should be commensurate with their standing and the results they deliver - doesn’t matter if it’s athlete, lawyer or salesman. Broadening this out beyond the UK, last year 15 US women hit the 11.08 UK 100m time. Most of those won’t get anywhere near a champs due to a quota system - that’s exactly what 3 per country is - while demonstrably worse, sometimes much worse, athletes do get that opportunity and everything that stems from that. In what other line of work are quotas acceptable? Isn’t that a pretty major restraint of trade?

[Sovietvest]

Good post Soviet.

Standards. The standards should be universal, but the requirements should be changed so that they must be achieved, say, 3 times in the qualification period. Do that and most of the arguments about whether someone is worth a place fall away.

No, not only elite athletes should earn out of the sport. But anyone’s earnings should be commensurate with their standing and the results they deliver - doesn’t matter if it’s athlete, lawyer or salesman. Broadening this out beyond the UK, last year 15 US women hit the 11.08 UK 100m time. Most of those won’t get anywhere near a champs due to a quota system - that’s exactly what 3 per country is - while demonstrably worse, sometimes much worse, athletes do get that opportunity and everything that stems from that. In what other line of work are quotas acceptable? Isn’t that a pretty major restraint of trade?

Excellent points, Ursus. I was very proud of my ‘restraint of trade’ argument but annoyingly you’ve identified the weakness in it: the inherent unfairness/ constraints of country quotas!