The US Athletics team obtained just five individual gold medals in Tokyo, four for women and just one for men. After the fantastic performances at the US Trials one month earlier, one would expect something better from the US team. Or should one? In fact I am convinced that the reason the US athletes do not excel at the major championships are precisely the Trials. The competition there is so fierce that everybody (well, almost) has to be at the best shape possible in order to obtain a place in the team. And maintaining this shape for over a month after the Trials is nigh impossible. So, either you are practically certain to make the team in which case you can afford a short tapering in your preparation in order to make the team and then fine-tune your training in view of the main rendezvous. Or you have to fight tooth and nail for a place in the team, in which case the Trials are the important meeting and if you are qualified you can then try to salvage your preparation for the big meeting.
The US Trials is an old and venerable institution. The athletic teams were nominated through national trials already for the 1920 Olympics, for men, and for the 1928 Olympics for women. And, even previously, the 1908 and 1912 teams were selected based on regional trials. There is no selection committee (well, not quite: the substitute relay runners, the ones who complement the first four, are selected by a committee). It's a do or die event: if you finish among the first three you are in the team, provided you have realised the minimum required performance (the minimum being set by World Athletics). This, rather brutal system, has already cost the US team more than one gold medal. In 1992, Dan O'Brien, already World Champion in the decathlon, no-heighted in the pole vault. He did not make the team and in Barcelona the decathlon gold medal was won by R. Zmelik. O'Brien broke the world record two months later, went on to win the 1993 and 1995 World's and got redemption by winning the 1996 Olympic decathlon in Atlanta. (I could go on and on with examples, but you get the gist).
So the question is how could one devise a qualifying system better than the one of the US. The first idea that comes to mind is to have a selection committee which nominates the members of the team. This is probably the worst solution since it would invariably lead to never-ending disputes. A better solution would be to have a point classification system, similar to the World Ranking of World Athletics but tailored to the US reality, and select the team on that basis. Although objective, such a system would be rather rigid and would certainly spark off critiques, in particular on the criteria used for the ranking. A better system would be to nominate the national champion (provided he has realised the minima) and complement the team through a committee selection. The UK selection is close to this and in fact probably better. The first two of the championship are nominated in the team but the athlete for third place is selected. This allows some flexibility and would ensure that the best athlete is not left out of the team because of a passing weakness.
Unfortunately more and more national federations are copying the US system. I already wrote about 2016 olympic champion O. McLeod being left out of the team (but, to be fair, his absence did not hurt the jamaican team, since they won gold and bronze in Tokyo). T. Cheruiyot was initially out of the team and could be qualified only because the 18-year-old K. Etyang, who had finished second in the trials, was ineligible for the Olympics, not having had three out-of-competition doping tests. His participation was most fortunate since he gave the opportunity to J. Ingebrigtsen to win by beating the runner considered up to that moment as the best miler in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment