• Login
  • |
  • Contact

    LIVE SUPPORT

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    ContactCode

    OTHER

    Email:
    info@trackie.com

    Voicemail:
    1.877.456.5544

You are viewing page of 4.

Discussion Forum >>

TrackieReg - Free Online Registration for pretty much anything!
Reply to topic Go to last post
Avatar
Anonymous
Posts: 49706
thumbs_up 16
Report  ORIGINAL

XC selection???? said 5 months ago

World XC selection

Show Original Post
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49706
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #76 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    How far in advance could a track time be achieved in order to qualify? If there are no restrictions it could be run a year before world's. Surely that does not make sense...

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49706
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #77 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    Quoting: SteveWeiler
    "A few brief notes for people to consider regarding this 10k XC criteria:
    *it does not include 10k road standards. There is precedent for a track/road conversion in previous AC criteria (Chiba) that could have been adopted
    *includes Marathon but not Half Marathon (a World Championship distance)
    *uses a World ranking for events that have considerably different levels of global depth
    *uses the same ranking for each event, rather than a bell-shaped curve with more challenging standards/rankings the further away from the 10k distance you get"


    1 - agree re: road 10k
    2. - half marathon performance is not eligible for carding to my knowledge, so AC does not view it in the same light as other distance events
    3. - this is true, but is an issue for carding as well (look at all the steeplers we've supported recently, because this is traditionally quite a weak event internationally relative to others). if you introduced more rigorous standards for one event because of its lack of depth, you'd have a big push back
    4. a valid concern, but you'd need to have a great deal of transparency in terms of how these fluctuating standards are created, and what rationale was used to create the various data transformations. given the fact that the document just came out now - I think we can all agree AC didn't exactly "plan" this to the level that would be required in the situation you've suggested

    Quote comment
  • myth User since:
    Jan 23rd, 2014
    Posts: 243
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #78 

    Myth said 5 months ago

    Steve - apologies for the misunderstanding. I guess I was misled (mythled?) by your statement earlier in the post

    "my personal thoughts are that
    the timing of publication should dominate this 'change in criteria' discussion: the most likely beneficiaries of Step 2 were already established before this criteria was released and other athletes have little to no opportunity to pursue these standards.

    *emphasis mine.

    Regarding whether an earlier 2018 document would be the same - that's wading pretty deeply into the world of hypotheticals and speculation. We don't know, therefore in my opinion, it's something of a wasted exercise to worry about it. Should criteria have come out earlier? 100% yes. And I suspect we will see some challenges and appeals for this team selection on that basis.

    Quote comment
  • steveweiler User since:
    Mar 28th, 2012
    Posts: 736
    thumbs_up 8
    Report    REPLY #79 

    SteveWeiler said 5 months ago

    Myth, that's a perfect example of focusing on the outcome vs. process.

    You strongly disagreed "that the publication of this criteria earlier would have changed the rankings list in any way shape or form."

    I did not specify that an earlier posting would, or would not, have changed the rankings (outcome). You're welcome to insist that I implied that this change could have impacted the rankings, but given the context of the remainder of my post

    "In what other circumstances would the Athletics community be okay with this kind of selection process?
    Preemptively - whether or not timely publication would have changed the standards rankings is both unknowable and decidedly not the point."

    my post was specifically focused on the process.

    Quote comment
  • eighthundred User since:
    Dec 30th, 2014
    Posts: 47
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #80 

    eighthundred said 5 months ago

    Quoting: SteveWeiler
    "Please identify the "same posters" who complained about the quality of athletes on previous World XC teams and are now complaining about the 2018-2019 XC team selection criteria."


    Just tell Leslie to finish top 4. If you didn't have an athlete that stood to lose a trip i don't think your argument would be the same. The objective of of a national federation is to select the best possible team given the available talent pool. Fairness matters but so does performance.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49706
    thumbs_up 11
    Report    REPLY #81 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    Yo eighthundred you forgot to identify the posters that were supposedly being hypocrites. Unless, you were just lying. Seems like a weird thing to lie about.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49706
    thumbs_up 5
    Report    REPLY #82 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    Is it really too much to ask that a professional runner show up to run nationals?

    Quote comment
  • triple-zero User since:
    Feb 1st, 2008
    Posts: 63
    thumbs_up 24
    Report    REPLY #83 

    triple zero said 5 months ago

    Quoting: eighthundred
    "Just tell Leslie to finish top 4. If you didn't have an athlete that stood to lose a trip i don't think your argument would be the same. The objective of of a national federation is to select the best possible team given the available talent pool. Fairness matters but so does performance."


    If you were at all familiar with Weiler's posting history on here you would know that he is an advocate for fair and objective criteria whether it affects his athletes or not.

    I am planning on focusing on a spring marathon and never intended on declaring for the team (in the event that I actually race well enough to be considered for selection).

    This post was edited by triple zero 5 months ago . 
    Quote comment
  • eighthundred User since:
    Dec 30th, 2014
    Posts: 47
    thumbs_up 10
    Report    REPLY #84 

    eighthundred said 5 months ago

    Quoting: triple zero
    "If you were at all familiar with Weiler's posting history on here you would know that he is an advocate for fair and objective criteria whether it affects his athletes or not.

    I am planning on focusing on a spring marathon and never intended on declaring for the team (in the event that I actually race well enough to be considered for selection)."


    I usually scroll past Weiller’s condescending posts, with his penchant appeal to authority and lack of substance, kind of like his snide reply to my comment. Rather than address the merits of my argument and suggest how this rule would not make Canada more competitive at World XC he decided to focus on a general statement I made about how posters on Trackie as a collective bemoan (it’s impossible to differentiate posters when everyone is anonymous by the way) that Canada has not sent a competitive team to world XC. So when Athletics Canada takes a specific measure to address the concerns about our lack of competitiveness by giving leniency to the few truly World beaters that Canada has like Justyn Knight, Cam Levins and Mo Ahmed I am surprised that everyone is collectively upset about it even when those three athletes have shown no indications they even want to exercise that option nor did they petition to be given special considerations. The level of absurdity has even extended to posters seriously arguing that the 5th placer at ACXC could beat someone of the caliber of the three athletes above citing the unpredictable nature of cross country. Yes, a cross country specialist can beat a marginally faster athlete but when the difference is a minute over 5k and over two minutes in a 10k then barring extreme circumstances they don’t have a chance—especially when the athletes in question are all very competent cross country athletes. As Lucas Bruchet and Steve Boyd posted above, giving leniency to exceptional athletes is not new and when the athletes themselves invite the opportunity to accommodate their world class peers as Lucas and Chuck have publicly, why the outrage?

    Leslie, thank you for competing at nationals, it’s nice when our best athletes decide to compete at our championships and I hope you can appreciate that there are reasons besides not caring enough that would preclude others from doing so—if Cam Levins had finished minutes outside his stated goal at Toronto Marathon than I am sure he would be recovered and on the start line too. Best of luck in your spring Marathon! This is my last post on here, enjoy the conversation.

    This post was edited by eighthundred 5 months ago . 
    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49706
    thumbs_up 11
    Report    REPLY #85 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    Quoting: eighthundred
    "I usually scroll past Weiller’s condescending posts, with his penchant appeal to authority and lack of substance, kind of like his snide reply to my comment. Rather than address the merits of my argument and suggest how this rule would not make Canada more competitive at World XC he decided to focus on a general statement I made about how posters on Trackie as a collective bemoan (it’s impossible to differentiate posters when everyone is anonymous by the way) that Canada has not sent a competitive team to world XC. So when Athletics Canada takes a specific measure to address the concerns about our lack of competitiveness by giving leniency to the few truly World beaters that Canada has like Justyn Knight, Cam Levins and Mo Ahmed I am surprised that everyone is collectively upset about it even when those three athletes have shown no indications they even want to exercise that option nor did they petition to be given special considerations. The level of absurdity has even extended to posters seriously arguing that the 5th placer at ACXC could beat someone of the caliber of the three athletes above citing the unpredictable nature of cross country. Yes, a cross country specialist can beat a marginally faster athlete but when the difference is a minute over 5k and over two minutes in a 10k then barring extreme circumstances they don’t have a chance—especially when the athletes in question are all very competent cross country athletes. As Lucas Bruchet and Steve Boyd posted above, giving leniency to exceptional athletes is not new and when the athletes themselves invite the opportunity to accommodate their world class peers as Lucas and Chuck have publicly, why the outrage?

    Leslie, thank you for competing at nationals, it’s nice when our best athletes decide to compete at our championships and I hope you can appreciate that there are reasons besides not caring enough that would preclude others from doing so—if Cam Levins had finished minutes outside his stated goal at Toronto Marathon than I am sure he would be recovered and on the start line too. Best of luck in your spring Marathon! This is my last post on here, enjoy the conversation."


    Apparently Weiler's posts come across as condescending to you, suggesting you are missing his point every time. He carefully words his posts because people misinterpret them and infer things he is not saying. Such as your inference that he was posting because he is upset Sexton isn't considered fast enough to skip Nationals, something she and Weiler have spoken out against in the past, probably on the grounds of fairness to all, I can't recall. Sexton shows up to Nationals and AOs pretty much every chance she has. If she doesn't make a team, she doesn't make excuses. The point of Weiler's post, which you missed, was that if AC made bypassing of standards or national team selection for other events for a select few (Olympics, World Track, Chiba...) people in general seem to have found that an unfair process in the past. He is asking why it is different in this circumstance.

    Your response is that you don't mind it, which is fine. And also you think he's butthurt that Sexton wasn't included. That part was stupid and completely unfounded in any kind of post Weiler has made, even if you decided you're too good for this conversation and are leaving now that you've been called out on it.

    Quote comment
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2397
    thumbs_up 10
    Report    REPLY #86 

    Oldster said 5 months ago

    Quoting: eighthundred
    "I usually scroll past Weiller’s condescending posts, with his penchant appeal to authority and lack of substance, kind of like his snide reply to my comment. Rather than address the merits of my argument and suggest how this rule would not make Canada more competitive at World XC he decided to focus on a general statement I made about how posters on Trackie as a collective bemoan (it’s impossible to differentiate posters when everyone is anonymous by the way) that Canada has not sent a competitive team to world XC. So when Athletics Canada takes a specific measure to address the concerns about our lack of competitiveness by giving leniency to the few truly World beaters that Canada has like Justyn Knight, Cam Levins and Mo Ahmed I am surprised that everyone is collectively upset about it even when those three athletes have shown no indications they even want to exercise that option nor did they petition to be given special considerations. The level of absurdity has even extended to posters seriously arguing that the 5th placer at ACXC could beat someone of the caliber of the three athletes above citing the unpredictable nature of cross country. Yes, a cross country specialist can beat a marginally faster athlete but when the difference is a minute over 5k and over two minutes in a 10k then barring extreme circumstances they don’t have a chance—especially when the athletes in question are all very competent cross country athletes. As Lucas Bruchet and Steve Boyd posted above, giving leniency to exceptional athletes is not new and when the athletes themselves invite the opportunity to accommodate their world class peers as Lucas and Chuck have publicly, why the outrage?

    Leslie, thank you for competing at nationals, it’s nice when our best athletes decide to compete at our championships and I hope you can appreciate that there are reasons besides not caring enough that would preclude others from doing so—if Cam Levins had finished minutes outside his stated goal at Toronto Marathon than I am sure he would be recovered and on the start line too. Best of luck in your spring Marathon! This is my last post on here, enjoy the conversation."


    You've made some excellent posts in this forum on other topics. It's therefore unfortunate that you'd attempt to make a discussion like this personal, particularly while availing yourself of the privilege of anonymity. (Why don't we get the opportunity to interpret your opinions through the prism of your personal identity and position in this sport, the way you have attempted to do with Weiler? Where's the shame when you do this kind of thing? And the little shot at Leslie too? Really?)

    If you wanted to attack someone for arguing in bad faith, you picked the decidedly wrong guy in Weiler. He is consistently principled and never resorts to insults (even as a final flourish, which can be very hard to resist in the case of anonymous people who try to ambush non-anonymous people). There is room for disagreement on this issue, but I don't see any place at all for questioning people's motives for holding one position over another, particularly, again, when not everyone's possible motives are available to be considered, due to the anonymity thing.

    And let me clarify my own comment: I said that they used to consider appeals by non-competing athletes. I also said these had to be submitted before the championship itself, and that the bias was always in favour of those competing in the trial, even when the non-competing appellant had a valid reason for not competing. Finally, I added that this was when we had a February trials date (i.e. 6 weeks before Worlds). The principle of adding non-competing athletes to the team to ensure that it was a strong as possible was therefore roughly the same then as now. However, there was an assumption then that all interested team members would compete in the trial (thereby showing a commitment to XC) if at all possible. If I recall, every non-competing appellant cited illness or injury as the reason for not competing. No one would have gotten away with saying, in effect, "I'm healthy and able to run, but it doesn't fit my schedule, and I'm better than most people on the team even without training for or racing any XC". Right or wrong, this is the way it was. And it's worth noting that, today, basically every country that competes at WXC could, in theory, field a much stronger team than they actually do. Think, for instance, of the team the US could field if it went to a partial selection system. Most countries, including ones that might do much better with a selection system, pick their XC teams from a straight trial and simply live with the result. The bias internationally seems to be toward having an exciting and meaningful trials race. But, I would agree with Matt H's comments on the Rochus show that we really should go back to a February trial (in B.C). But, to balance things out regionally, and to preserve the meaning and quality of fall event, we should keep nationals in Ontario on a permanent basis, with a focus the team component (and please don't exploit my lack of anonymity to snipe that we just want to keep hosting every year).

    Quote comment
  • steveweiler User since:
    Mar 28th, 2012
    Posts: 736
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #87 

    SteveWeiler said 5 months ago

    This is an old post I wrote summarizing 7 years of Canadian XC team selection criteria. I will highlight:

    1) Exception to trials: there is precedence for requiring XC specific performance to receive exception by appeal from the trials, in 2010 and 2011
    2) there is considerable year to year variation in the criteria, which was sometimes released in November, as it was in 2018
    3) the Senior eligibility pool ranged from 24 to 8 (with additional restrictions)

    "In 2007, WXC switched back to 1 Senior race. Here is a brief overview of the Canadian XC Team selection criteria since 2007 (trials in 2006):

    2006-2007
    Seniors: Selection will be based solely on placing at the Trials and will not go deeper than the top 24 ELIGIBLE finishers.
    Juniors: Selection will be based solely on placing at the Trials and will not go deeper than the top 16 ELIGIBLE finishers.

    2007-2008
    Participation at the Canadian XC: mandatory
    Athlete pool: top 12 ELIGIBLE (top 16 for Senior Men) at the Trials
    Participation at NACAC (to go to WXC): expected

    2008-2009 (posted October 14)
    Participation at the Canadian XC: expected
    Athlete pool: top 12 ELIGIBLE at the Trials
    Participation at NACAC (to go to WXC): expected, unless they have a pre-approved competitive conflict
    Team at NACAC (to go to WXC): must finish top-3

    2009-2010 (revised October 20)
    Participation at the Canadian XC: mandatory
    Athlete pool: top 8 ELIGIBLE at the Trials
    Athlete pool further criteria: 4 of top 6 MUST declare, and 5 of top 8
    Development: senior athletes (no previous teams) who finish 9th -- 12th at the trials could take 6th spot
    Team at NACAC (to go to WXC): must finish top-2

    2010-2011 (posted October 8)
    Participation at the Canadian XC: required
    Exceptions to Trials: Exceptions by appeal would only be considered from those athletes who have placed in top 1/3 of field at a previous recent World XC Championships and have valid reason for not participating.
    Athlete pool: top 8 ELIGIBLE at the Trials
    Athlete pool further criteria: 3 of top 5 MUST declare, and 5 of top 8
    Participation at NACAC (to go to WXC): required
    Team at NACAC (to go to WXC): must finish top-2

    2011-2012 (posted November 7)
    Participation at the Canadian XC: required
    Exceptions to Trials: Exceptions by appeal would only be considered from those athletes who have placed in top 1/3 of field at a recent World XC Championships and are unable to participate due to extraordinary circumstances.
    Athlete pool: top 8 ELIGIBLE at the Trials
    Athlete pool further criteria: 3 of top 6 MUST declare, and 4 of top 8
    (no Worlds)

    2012-2013 (posted November 1)
    Participation at the Canadian XC: required
    Exceptions to Trials: none, this was removed
    Athlete pool: top 10 ELIGIBLE at the Trials
    Athlete pool further criteria: 4 of top 10 must declare
    Participation at NACAC (to go to WXC): Athletes who have achieved an AC Olympic standard in a running event 3000m or longer in 2011 and/or 2012 may request an exemption
    Team at NACAC (to go to WXC): Teams finishing in the top 2 at the NACAC Championship and/or teams deemed capable of finishing in the top ½ of teams at the World Championship will be considered selectable"

    This post was edited by SteveWeiler 5 months ago . 
    Quote comment
  • steveweiler User since:
    Mar 28th, 2012
    Posts: 736
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #88 

    SteveWeiler said 5 months ago

    Quoting: Oldster
    "I would agree with Matt H's comments on the Rochus show that we really should go back to a February trial (in B.C). But, to balance things out regionally, and to preserve the meaning and quality of fall event, we should keep nationals in Ontario on a permanent basis, with a focus the team component (and please don't exploit my lack of anonymity to snipe that we just want to keep hosting every year)."


    I wrote this as a response to you 6 years ago:

    "@oldster It would be a lot simpler if we had consistent selection criteria that was released in a timely manner, and followed, including a WXC trials in February, every 2nd year, with the November Championships more of a Team focus and still kept as NACAC selection."

    A quick look at the 2012 and 2017 Senior team #s:
    In 2012 in Vancouver, Athletics Toronto put 4 in the top-10 to dominate the SW division, in which there were 6 teams. Point Grey won SM, in which there were also 6 teams.

    In 2017 in Kingston, Physi-Kult topped a field of 4 SW teams; Speed River was first of 9 SM teams. PK an SR earned team prize money, thanks to Run Ottawa.

    Quote comment
  • new-post-last-visitanonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49706
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #89 

    /s but maybe not said 5 months ago

    well, if you're under 33 (M) or 37 (F) for 10k, you can run WXC as a random if the selection criteria's got you bummed (and you've got the cash to fund yourself a trip to Denmark):

    https://www.aarhus2019.dk/en/mass-race/the-search/

    If you suck too much you'll get lapped out, though.

    Quote comment
Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
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