Having competed against both sprinters, and knowing many people who train with the two, I witnessed alot of divided opinions, and criticism was handed out in many directions.
Without being able to fit all my rambling, swirling thoughts into a twitter or facebook post, I have put my thoughts on the situation into a blog here instead.
Why Athletics Australia is not to blame.
Criticism was directed at Athletics Australia (AA) by many, led chiefly by John Steffensen. Steffensen's complaint was that AA had moved the goal posts, after previously determining that only athletes with an IAAF 'A' qualifier would be selected for the Olympics, and neither he nor Solomon had reached the 400m individual A standard of 45.30.
It was also stated that the decision rendered the Olympic Trials, (held in early March and won by Steffensen) largely irrelevant.
I'm of the opinion that AA shouldn't be blamed for either of these aspects.
One of the criticisms AA had endured over the years was that they often seemingly tried to take the smallest possible team to major championships. In most instances, AA considers the nomination standard to be the 'A' standard set by the IAAF. As such, achieving an IAAF 'B' qualifying time, often meant little to selectors.
The nomination criteria outlines this philosophy;
"As a general rule Athletics Australia (AA) will only nominate Athletes to the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) for selection in the 2012 Australian Olympic Team who Selectors believe, on the basis of their current results or previous major international results, are likely to finish in the top 16 in their respective event at the 2012 Olympic Games, London."
With this criteria in place, many athletes who only achieved IAAF B qualifying times this season were overlooked on initial selection, including Tamsyn Manou, Josh Ross, Lachlan Renshaw, and both Steffensen and Solomon.
There was however, the following 'developing athlete' provision outlined in the nomination criteria;
"...the Selectors also have the discretion to choose any Athlete for nomination to the AOC who, in their opinion, has the ability to achieve a top 8 position at the 2016 Olympic Games, Rio de Janeiro, provided that the Selectors are also of the view that such an Athlete would benefit from the experience of competing in the 2012 Olympic Games, London."
This provision could only allow a maximum of one B standard athlete to be selected in an event, and it was this provision that allowed the selection of Melissa Breen, who narrowly missed the IAAF A qualifying time in the 100m by 0.002 of a second, and apparently also now after his 45.52 bronze medal run at this weeks IAAF World Junior Championships, the 19 year old Solomon.
AA also extended the closing date for qualifying performances for the London games (twice) after criticism received in the Genevieve LaCaze situation, in an effort to give athletes every chance to qualify.
So while it was, as Steffensen assessed 'moving the goal posts', the movement helped result in the biggest Olympic athletics team since the 2000 Sydney Games, and for the additional flexibility and in a sport where athletes 'on the cusp' have often left track and field in frustration after not being given a shot, a willingness to finally have a policy giving more options of inclusion rather than flat out exclusion, AA should be applauded.
One of the other criticisms of AA over the years was a failure to listen to athletes. This year, at the request of athletes and their coaches, the Olympic Trials were separated from the national championships, and moved forward to early March, to allow athletes to 'get them over with' and then resume their training blocks leading into the Olympics.
The problem with this was, it didn't work out very well for many athletes, with only 17 athletes added to the Olympic team after the trials, the rest were forced to compete on for the next several months in their attempts to run qualifying times for the team.
Other (northern hemisphere) countries often run their trials mere weeks before the major championship, which usually leads to those athletes who qualify for the team being in peak condition at the right time. For Australia, having Olympic trials so early has often meant that the summer peak could not be surpassed (or even matched) by the time the championship came around, it also left a very large amount of time for injury to strike, which was one of the things that plagued Steffensen.
So here Athletics Australia have demonstrated a willingness to include more athletes for selection, and to listen to the athletes and adhere to their requests, even if it didn't work out very well for the parties involved, AA shouldn't be criticised for moving away from a more hardline stance in the past.
Why Steffensen has a legitimate gripe
At the crux of the argument, is the very real fact that in March, Steffensen was in better shape, and he had shown the ability to get himself into shape when he was told it counted.
Only now, it's been revealed that seemingly the 'developing athlete' provision can carry more weight than victory at the Olympic trials.
If athletes had known that at the time, many (not just Steffensen) could have focused more on their training base for longer, which could have led them to reaching better form later in the year, closer to the championships. You could make the argument that for some athletes, competing at the Olympic trials actually hurt either their chances of getting to London, or how they will perform in London, and there is something terribly wrong with that.
So Steffensen has a legitimate gripe with the decision, and for an athlete who through injury and unlucky timing has never been able to secure an individual berth in the Olympics for Australia, to see it given to someone he beat at the trials back in March, has to sting. For an aging athlete who has been near the top of the sport in this country for the better part of a decade, punishing his body in training for years and not always getting the results or accolades he felt his effort and dedication warranted, it was perceived as just another kick in the teeth in a sport that often simply cares about nothing but the result.
Why Solomon should run
I believe athletes should be selected because they have run the fastest in the qualifying period, not because they are deemed through some discretionary crystal ball that they may do big things down the track. Predictions like that are very hit and miss, for every medalist at World Junior championships who goes on to big things in senior competition, theres another who completely falls off the map.
If I'd been overlooked for the 2012 Oceania Championships selection in favour of someone younger who hadn't run as fast as me in the name of athlete development, I'd have been quite upset... Obviously however, if my place went to someone who had run a faster time, then thats pretty black and white.
With Solomon, he should run at the Olympics because he is faster this season, and much faster right now, right before the Olympics. He has twice this season topped Steffensen's seasonal best time of 45.61, and his most recent run on Friday of 45.52, was almost a second faster than Steffensen's most recent run this week of 46.45.
Had the situation been reversed, and Steffensen this week run 45.5, and Solomon run 46.5, I'd be calling for Steffensen to be given a shot instead and for Solomon to wait it out four more years, but unfortunately for Steffensen he hasn't really recovered the early season form he had prior to injuring his hamstring at the Stawell gift.
Solomon, who had his own hamstring issues leading into the Olympic trials, has since built throughout the season running PBs in big races, first at the National Championships final in April, and now at the World Junior Championships final this week.
So as the form athlete, with the better time this year, and with only one spot available, it's my opinion that we should let Solo run.
I think that's a wonderfully well balanced discussion of the issue. While I can well understand Steffenson's frustration, his suggestion that the decision had something to do with his skin colour was idiotic. It's impossible to believe that that factor came into it. However, I'm sorry to say that in blurting out that comment, Steffensen has probably dug himself deeper into a hole of public dislike. Some athletes are loved by the Australian public. Some are not. My perception is that Steffensen falls into the second category. He manages to come across as un-Australian. Not that that in any way affects the rightness or wrongness of the team selection decision.
ReplyDelete