• Login
  • |
  • Contact

    LIVE SUPPORT

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    ContactCode

    OTHER

    Email:
    info@trackie.com

    Voicemail:
    1.877.456.5544

Discussion Forum >>

2017 U Sports Cross Country Fantasy Team Contest
Reply to topic Go to last post
Avatar
Anonymous
Posts: 39785
thumbs_up 6
Report  ORIGINAL

Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

Commonwealth Men's 4x100m

AC recently made an amendment to the Commonwealth Criteria stating that if awarded more spots they will first take two more relay alternates before qualified athletes to the Games. To take the 4x100m they must first have two individually qualified athletes. But the relay team is ineligible...

Yohan Blake is 5th ranked at 19.97, not Andre. Therefore Aaron Brown does not meet the 98% of IAAF points standard set forth by criteria in the first place. Has anyone else taken a look at this or have a reasonable explanation?

Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 6
    Report    REPLY #1 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    Doesn't AC just make up the rules to suit themselves most of the time anyways? Why would this be any different?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #2 

    AC Can't Do Math? said 2 weeks ago

    You're correct - I've got Aaron as 97.4% of Yohan's time based on IAAF points (19.97 is 1225 points, AB's time of 20.17 is 1193). They also list him as being ranked 9th, which is incorrect as he is ranked 11th (3 South Africans, 2 athletes from England, 2 Jamaicans, an athlete from Botswana, an athlete from Trinidad and Tobago and De Grasse are all ahead of him in the Commonwealth). So clearly there is a mistake being made somewhere (perhaps looking at outdated rankings?).

    This has big implications - if he is ineligible, the entire 4x100 team is ineligible, which fills up 4 spots in the original 36 allocated (which may extend to 6 spots since they're filling up extra spots awarded with relay athletes, which is a problem in itself IMO). Perhaps Dunfee can shed some light on this?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #3 

    Sneaky AC said 2 weeks ago

    I think I know what's going on.... Yohan Blake and the T&T athlete Jareem Richards have the same time. So AC is saying De Grasse has the 5th fastest time, which is true... But he's the 6th fastest person. If this is the case, that is sneaky as hell because they're using semantics to select an athlete, and therefore an entire relay team

    Quote comment
  • sub49 User since:
    Apr 3rd, 2016
    Posts: 53
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #4 

    sub49 said 2 weeks ago

    This should not be a surprise at all...Athletics Canada has a habit of changing/manipulating their own criteria to suit their own interests. It's also worth noting that De Grasse is not qualified in the 100... will be interesting to see if they 'find a way' to put him in there as well.

    I hope that the Athletes in 37th, 38th, etc. positions who are just missing out on selection take a good hard look at these rules and consider appealing. I'm all for sending our best athletes and teams, but our federation seriously needs to start sticking by the criteria it sets out initially. It was pretty obvious at the time AC released this criteria that Brown and Rodney were having subpar seasons (neither had achieved standard at the time), so it's not like AC shouldn't have considered this possibility either...

    A more valid way for AC to include the relay team while actually following their own criteria would be to declare Damian Warner as a team member (he's run 10.1x before), and then we could 'legally' add two (or possibly four) more guys.

    This post was edited by sub49 2 weeks ago . 
    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #5 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    This criteria virtually guarantees we aren't sending our best athletes. Focus is supposed to be on winning medals, and yet we're sending 3 decathletes? 8% of the team all competing for the same 3 medals, when one of them is ranked number 1, and the other two are 9 and 10 and have never made a major team before. Meanwhile Phylicia George is on the wrong side of the cut despite being a stalwart athlete, with a better track record of performance and a higher CG ranking.

    I don't understand how someone can justify this criteria.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #6 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    Criteria comes from CWG not AC. AC adjustments are likely to ensure our relay team goes because with a health Andre, yeah he's gonna medal. It's not bad to do this.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #7 

    Runfastrunfar said 2 weeks ago

    The entire situation is incredibly frustrating.

    The relay team should be considered that, a team - lest we forget they are the World Relay Gold Medalists/World Championship Finalists.

    With respect to the decathlon - the Commonwealth Games would have "softer" competition since the US and Europeans are not there.

    Elite and sub-elite athletes (all events; all sports) need competition otherwise they will not know what to do or what to expect at a high-level meet. I can reel off decathletes who were not impressive (internationally) who went on to be forces in the multis globally (Paavo in '28, Campbell in '52, Daley in '76).

    Any Area Games (Commonwealth, Pan-Am, NACAC, ASEAN, Oceana, etc.) needs to be a mini version of the Olympics. These arbitrary numbers of athletes permitted makes attending the Games or being passed over belittles our sport (Track) and sport in general (they are doing away with lightweight rowing, bad idea; good luck competing against the 6'6 240 pound heavyweights).

    I have said this before and I will say it again, we (Canada) need to send the BEST team, not the team we think can win medals - projected medals are not REAL medals.

    My baby pictures projected a handsome, rich, and funny man. I am only rich and handsome.

    Our sport is easy to determine who is the best - times, distances, and heights. We should be using these as our criteria as to who we send. The whole issue of comparing our athletes to someone else's athletes is incredibly problematic since in an earlier post/another thread I stated that if an athlete from another country cheated and is ranked then our athlete will be left behind. The athlete is being punished three times;

    1) They get beat in competition (Diamond League, Invitationals),
    2) They doubt if they are good enough, and finally
    3) They are denied the opportunity to represent Canada.

    This has got to stop !!!! Athletes are walking away from the sport once they are faced with the gauntlet of "elite performance standards", funding or lack thereof, and the missed opportunity to represent Canada internationally.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #8 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    I don't believe the standards are Commonwealth Games standards. There are athletes from other nations who are beneath the 98% of 5th ranked and have already been selected. Some of the teams have already been finalized at a previous date than AC.

    As far as the relay team is concerned, AC has made special selections in the past. I think with such a limited team capacity ( by both quota and qualifying standards ) that this should be a team where they at least follow through with their own criteria. I don't think turning CG into a free 4x100m relay camp with 6 athletes is even remotely fair for those who have earned their standard.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #9 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    Yet another reason to just run as fast as you can as a tenager. Get as much college money as possible and just soak in the college running experience then get out of the sport. Attempting to run for Canada will only have you spending a lot of money on a therapist in the future and no I don't mean physio. IT IS JUST NOT WORTH IT TO YOUR MENTAL HEALTH

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #10 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    CWG Canada takes their standard info from AC. Do you really think they have criteria experts for every sport at the CWG? They are smaller than the COC and the COC relies on AC to set the standards.

    Quote comment
  • sub49 User since:
    Apr 3rd, 2016
    Posts: 53
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #11 

    sub49 said 2 weeks ago

    The criteria and standards are absolutely set by athletics Canada, the only thing commonwealth Canada does is give AC a quota (in this case 36 athletes), after that, it's up to ac to select those 36

    Quote comment
  • evan-dunfee User since:
    Jul 11th, 2017
    Posts: 8
    thumbs_up 9
    Report    REPLY #12 

    Evan Dunfee said 2 weeks ago

    We need some clarity here before this turns into complete bashing of AC.
    CGC (comm games Canada) gave us this ridiculous quota of 36 (basically Comm Games will be criticized for its lack of depth which I think will be used to further scale it down next time before ultimately doing away with the meet all together, imo)

    and then said we could only pick athletes ranked in the top 5... AC fought back and got this whole 98% eligibility pool thing otherwise our team would be a lot smaller than 36. So good for AC on that one.

    But this whole top 5 thing came from CGC, not AC.

    Aaron- I brought up this same concern about them changing things around to make him eligible. The response was acceptable, but a little shady. 2 of the South African performances ahead of him were at Altitude and thus taken out of consideration (his position is still wrong on the list, which I pointed out... but his percent is right).

    So Im not sure if I agree with that logic, but I'll accept it as an answer.

    I also don't think we have another else currently within that 98% and therefore even with those 3 and 4th relay spots they aren't displacing anyone.

    I totally don't agree with the amendment that any new quota spots go to relay first... but I understand again that that came from CGC and not AC.

    I hope that clears things up a bit.
    Basically, any gripes should be with CGC and not AC.
    Sorry that this sounds like an AC advert.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #13 

    Anonymous said 2 weeks ago

    Who the heck cares?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #14 

    Anonymous said 1 week ago

    Thanks for clearing things up Evan Dunfee! I don't believe the top 5th ranked based selection is an unfair one to be honest.

    Quoting: Evan Dunfee

    I also don't think we have another else currently within that 98% and therefore even with those 3 and 4th relay spots they aren't displacing anyone."


    At this point it looks like that only displaces Deryk Theodore, and Phylicia George; who looks to be training for the Winter Olympics at the present time. Obviously AC would like to have the Men's relay team at Commonwealth, but quite a roundabout way of selection...

    So it looks like repercussions fall solely on Deryk Theodore at the moment. Unless others were attempting to qualify before the deadline? I'm sure Phylicia George would also be considering competing after the Winter Olympics if selected.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #15 

    Anonymous said 1 week ago

    some sponsors prefer nacac in toronto in summer v cwg in spring.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #16 

    Anonymous said 1 week ago

    Evan - I'm curious as to why 98% was chosen? Why not simply fight for all top 10 ranked athletes? As is, with the 98% rule we are sending some athletes outside of the top 10, whereas others are left off the list with higher rankings?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #17 

    john said 1 week ago

    also, Athletics is the only sport where its quota was significantly cut. All other sports have 100% allocation (wrestling, gymnastics for ex.). So this reduction is utter bs by CWG Canada, and there needs to be a change for 2022. What a joke. Also swimming gave up 4 able-bodied quotas (announced a team of 26, instead of the initial 30 quota). So there is 4 quotas up for grabs among all other sports (which to be fair would be allocated to track and field as this is the only sport with a dramatic cut).

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #18 

    Anonymous said 1 week ago

    Quoting: Evan Dunfee
    "Aaron- I brought up this same concern about them changing things around to make him eligible. The response was acceptable, but a little shady. 2 of the South African performances ahead of him were at Altitude and thus taken out of consideration (his position is still wrong on the list, which I pointed out... but his percent is right)."


    Is there a rule that you can't qualify for IAAF competitions with altitude aided times? I've looked but can't find anything in the IAAF Rule Book...

    Quote comment
  • sub49 User since:
    Apr 3rd, 2016
    Posts: 53
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #19 

    sub49 said 1 week ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "Is there a rule that you can't qualify for IAAF competitions with altitude aided times? I've looked but can't find anything in the IAAF Rule Book..."



    No, there is not. The IAAF accepts performances at altitude for qualification purposes. AC traditionally however has not accepted altitude marks, so while I think this decision they've made is rather shady, it is somewhat consistent with previous policies they've had (although there is a notable difference between not accepting your own athletes altitude marks vs. pretending other countries athletes marks don't exist).

    Quote comment
  • evan-dunfee User since:
    Jul 11th, 2017
    Posts: 8
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #20 

    Evan Dunfee said 1 week ago

    Quoting: sub49
    "No, there is not. The IAAF accepts performances at altitude for qualification purposes. AC traditionally however has not accepted altitude marks, so while I think this decision they've made is rather shady, it is somewhat consistent with previous policies they've had (although there is a notable difference between not accepting your own athletes altitude marks vs. pretending other countries athletes marks don't exist)."


    This hits the nail on the head. My issue with it is that they should still technically be in the rankings because they are eligible for selection...I mean if we take those athletes out, why not take all the athletes out that are in the rankings but we know aren't going... Usain, Mo Farah, WVN.... But obviously I don't want to do that because it could effect my position. But if we are going to start picking and choosing who we count in these rankings, why is that not a stretch?

    Obviously I want to see Aaron and the relay on the team. But at the same time, if I was an athlete sitting 37th-40th... I'd have my appeal forms ready to be filed.

    Quote comment
  • myth User since:
    Jan 23rd, 2014
    Posts: 212
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #21 

    Myth said 6 days ago

    Quoting: Evan Dunfee
    "This hits the nail on the head. My issue with it is that they should still technically be in the rankings because they are eligible for selection...I mean if we take those athletes out, why not take all the athletes out that are in the rankings but we know aren't going... Usain, Mo Farah, WVN.... But obviously I don't want to do that because it could effect my position. But if we are going to start picking and choosing who we count in these rankings, why is that not a stretch?

    Obviously I want to see Aaron and the relay on the team. But at the same time, if I was an athlete sitting 37th-40th... I'd have my appeal forms ready to be filed."


    Thanks for your candour, Evan. I agree with others, this is more than a little morally suspect - AC is cherry picking to ensure they can send a relay team. If they as an organization don't want to include their own athletes who run a standard time at altitude, that's their choice (even though in the eyes of the IAAF it is a valid performance). But to say we're going to remove athletes from the IAAF rankings from other countries because the performance was run at altitude is ridiculous, and smacks of them gaming the system to ensure they can send a set of athletes that they want.

    Should the relay team be at the CWG and compete? Probably. But if they don't meet the criteria that every other athlete has to (flawed though it may be) - then they should not go. Full stop. And they most certainly shouldn't be awarded additional places given that they didn't qualify according to AC's own policy in the first place.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #22 

    cwg said 6 days ago

    Singapore is going to enter athletes (even 2 in most events) http://www.singaporeathletics.org.sg/commonwealth-games-2018

    How is this fair ???

    Quote comment
  • new-post-last-visitanonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 39785
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #23 

    Anonymous said 6 days ago

    Quoting: cwg
    "Singapore is going to enter athletes (even 2 in most events) http://www.singaporeathletics.org.sg/commonwealth-games-2018

    How is this fair ???"


    Largely irrelevant, since their qualifying standards are better than their national records by a wide margin in most events.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Singaporean_records_in_athletics

    Quote comment
Anonymous

says…    

Quote Underline Italics Bold
Submit Preview

By posting on our forum you are agreeing to the following guidelines.

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

 

Benefits of creating an account!

  • No need to reveal your real name.
  • Quicker to post (no need to enter the "two words" above each time).
  • Gives you the ability to edit your own comments and subscribe to topics.
  • It's free & quick to create an account!
Submit & Create Account

 

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1