British athletics name 72-strong team for doha world championships

[Occasional Hope]

Yes indeed - let's hope this is another lesson learned in regards to the plans to expand the numbers being invited rather than auto qualifying for Tokyo,

[larkim]

Other social media forums suggest the IAAF is still offering out invitations in an attempt to bolster field sizes, and running up against problems where even athletes are refusing the invitations because they have already taken steps to close their seasons.

It does seem that the "invitation" process is flawed, and it would be far better to simply say "Quali standard is XX, and if XX is not achieved by YY athletes, then the quali standard is being ranked in the top ZZ athletes (after the 3 per nation has been removed)." The concept of being "invited" just doesn't work.

[philipo]

British Athletics communications team fails again...

Really poor social media
Really poor marketing of events
Bloody REPRESENT on everything in sight

And now emails like this to athletes that have just had a baby...

What gives British Athletics the right to tell anybody that they don't believe they have what it takes to win a medal? Will decisions now be based on this algorithm that they have devised which they don't need to disclose to the public for fear of giving away some kind of "advantage"? Please....

I fully recommend everyone to email them to give them a piece of their mind. As fans of the sport we are entitled to give our feedback for how our sport is being represented.

0ne of the reasons UKAcontinue to make fools of themselves, apart from the tits they employ, is the obsession with modern day administrators with setting up the utter dri nonsense systems which have produced the most appalling rot seen above from UKA abou data systems, bloody "platforms" and "funnels" and the other shite about their fabulous data system having enabled them to determine those athletes who will develop and produce the goods. What arrogant idiots are they, who know nothing of the human spirit, mental aptitudes, that almost randomly produce our occasional British outstanding athletes., never mind their obvious inability, via data systems to know those athletes who will enjoy careers not blighted by constant injuries.

[Runner88]

British Athletics communications team fails again...

Really poor social media
Really poor marketing of events
Bloody REPRESENT on everything in sight

And now emails like this to athletes that have just had a baby...

What gives British Athletics the right to tell anybody that they don't believe they have what it takes to win a medal? Will decisions now be based on this algorithm that they have devised which they don't need to disclose to the public for fear of giving away some kind of "advantage"? Please....

I fully recommend everyone to email them to give them a piece of their mind. As fans of the sport we are entitled to give our feedback for how our sport is being represented.

[larkim]

As ludicrous as that email looks in some ways, at the end of the day they have set a policy and have to give a decision outcome in line with that policy. They can’t say “your current post partum state means you won’t be in a position to compete” because that’s not allowed for in the policy. UKA only have themselves to blame of course for putting up that policy in the first place, and it would be great to be able to get the invitation rejection clause removed from future policies.

[sidelined]

British Athletics just sent Jade Lally an email saying they'd turned down an invitation for her to compete in Doha because the don't think she can win a medal. They seem not to know that she gave birth nine weeks ago. They really have no idea what they're doing. I'm amazed they've ever filled in a 4 x 400 team sheet correctly. Here's the email and her response:

[larkim]

Mark English tweeted overnight that he's going, presumably a late invitation accepted by the Irish federation.

[Ladyloz]

Sprinters are only eligible for relay funding or Podium funding. They are specifically excluded from 'potential ' funding' .

[larkim]

Interestingly Michael Obasuyi of Belgium has received an IAAF invite for the 110mH and had it accepted - his best this season is 13.54 - same time as Cameron Fillery, meaning he'll get an invite too. Wonder if he fits the bill of 'podium potential' for British Athletics??

This one had niggled with me as I couldn't see any logic. But on the provisional lists I can't see Obasuyi, so are you certain he was invited and accepted? Hough (aus) and Kanai (jpn) appear to be the only two who have made the selection beyond the 13:46 quali time, with the four athletes slower than them all being their nation's only entrants, so I presume these are "univesality" athletes.

I wonder if Obasuyi had come to the wrong conclusion in the same way that Nick Willis had, that there were more spaces available to them because they hadn't considered the take up of places by slower, single-representative athletes.

[larkim]

Be interesting to see what the specifics of this are, as the source of the story originally is the Daily Mail. It could turn out that Miller and UKA had planned this in advance for some reason, or that it is something completely unexpected that UKA couldn't reasonably have foreseen. But if it is just lack of sensible thinking and planning for an event where we are performing relatively well, then it is very poor.

[sidelined]

Can you believe it? I mean can you bloody well believe it?

Says it all. They only had 2 flaming throwers to think about.

RIP British throwing.

The same thing happened to Shirley Webb in the Dave Collins era. She ended up throwing in a supermarket car park, IIRC.

The most irritating thing about the non-selections of GB athletes for me is knowing that other athletes with inferior marks will go in their place - so choosing not to send them actually lowers the standards of the whole competition (marginally, maybe, but it's the principle of the thing).

When it comes to deciding who has 'potential' the document about selection for the WCPP 2020 programme contains this:

What is the What it Takes to Win (WITTW) data and analysis?

This is simply a description of what the best in the world looks like. British Athletics have developed a series of interactive dashboards that displays all of this information for each event and this will be used as the framework for assessing athlete medal winning capacity (and therefore their place on the WCP).

It features a huge amount of data that describes the levels of performance expected of athletes as they develop towards the podium (similar to the old funnels) as well as projections regarding the future direction of the event (i.e. is it getting harder or easier). It also outlines the key physical/technical characteristics of medal winning athletes, alongside descriptions of the more subjective areas of global medal winners (such as behaviours, coaching quality, environment etc.).

This system is undoubtedly a competitive advantage over other nations and as such we do not intend to publish this data and analysis, or indeed send copies of the dashboards to individual athletes and their coaches. Instead, the data and analysis will be used as part of the athlete review process, with athletes and their coaches taken through each of the key areas in person.

So the whole process is shrouded secrecy while the NGB consult their crystal ball and their decisions can ever be challenged. How ridiculous.

[Ursus]

Can you believe it? I mean can you bloody well believe it?

Says it all. They only had 2 flaming throwers to think about.

RIP British throwing.

[Afrothletics]

Serious question and one that I now wonder, does the "potential" funding cover the potential to be an individual medallist only or does it include the possibility of being in the full relay squad and funded?

I'm not too sure re: funding, as there are various different ones such as world class, potential and relay funding.

With regards to invites/discretionary picks for podium potentials, you would assume it was for individual purposes, because anyone can be selected for a relay team without a qualifying standard. For example, if British Athletics were so certain that Danny Talbot would go on to become a relay world champion, why did they pick him for an individual event based on 'podium potential' as the reason when they could have just saved his energy and ran him in the relay only, as that's where his 'potential' is. He was clearly picked under the guise of having podium potential as a 200m individual, and the truth is he has never made a global final so it speaks for itself really.

The podium potential clause should be scrapped and named for what it really is - Performance Director's exception picks.

[Stew-Coach]

Why? He has never made an individual global final which is the whole point of 'podium potential'. Or because he's one of the more likeable athletes it's ok to gibe him a bye? Sounds like the mentality British Athletics have with their selections

You're right though, there's no way of telling how athletes will turn out, which is why the podium potential clause is so stupid.

Serious question and one that I now wonder, does the "potential" funding cover the potential to be an individual medallist only or does it include the possibility of being in the full relay squad and funded?

[Ursus]

having just spent quite sometime looking at the excellent Tilastopaja site with alll the ranked athletes , qualifying or not, I must admit i can't help feeling somewhat more sympathy for the many athletes across all disciplines and countries who cannot take part in the WC because they are in countries with more than 3 qualifying athletes, than i do for some Brits mentioned in many posts here.

Won't get any argument from me on that.

As one example the mSP standard is 20.70. 12 Americans have exceeded 21m which is world class by any measure yet 9 of them won't be going. Can't be right.