- 24 Jul 08, 03:43 PM
When people failed to make a team at my school they would normally wait until the bus home before they started a whispering campaign.
The letters page of Athletics Weekly has served the same purpose over the years for athletes who have just missed out on a major event. The week after the announcement of a GB team would usually witness a lively debate about bias, favouritism and plain incompetence at the top.
But not this time - and it's not because there aren't any eyebrow-raising selections or athletes with gripes. There are still plenty of those.
It's just now you don't start whispering or writing letters, you set up a Facebook group instead.
While the rest of us were distracted by the word from chambers about a certain sprinter with a restraint of trade issue, there were controversies of a more everyday variety elsewhere in Team GB's line-up for Beijing.
As highly-paid QCs debated the difference between a right and a privilege, other athletes were left wondering why they're not in the team when a slower bloke is.
What started on Sunday with a 168-word rant on every student's favourite waste of time about two mildly controversial calls by the selectors has quickly become a forum for dissent aimed at the sport's governing body.
And with UK Athletics looking forward to the London Grand Prix, not to mention next month's little event in China, it could probably do without a group called "UK ATHLETICS VOTE NO CONFIDENCE" talking about boycotts and protests at Crystal Palace this weekend.
There are now 467 members in this group (many of them athletes, a few of them of international quality, a couple of them former Olympians) and it is growing fast.
So just how did this all start? What are these causes celebres which have so incensed Britain's grass-roots scene? Who made the team and who hasn't?
The easiest of those questions to answer is the last. Dale Garland has made the team and Richard Yates (among others) has not.
Dale who? Richard what? You're right, we're not talking Dwain and Paula here.
The 27-year-old Garland is the Guernsey record holder for 100m, 200m, 400m, 110m hurdles, 400m hurdles, pole vault, long jump, triple jump and decathlon. He must be the best athlete Guernsey has ever produced.
He is also a lottery-funded athlete now concentrating on the 400m hurdles.
He is not, however, our fastest 400m hurdler this year. Hamstring niggles have hampered Garland all season to leave him only our fourth fastest.
Our fastest is Yates, a 22-year-old Leeds University student.
Having decided to put his law degree on hold for a year of full-time training, Yates has been taking chunks out of his personal best all season. He went under 51 seconds for the first time in June and then sub-50 two weeks later.
That was just a preamble to a startling display at the trials in July. Yates won in 49.50, an Olympic "B" qualifying time. He was now eligible for Beijing - eligible, but not going.
Not that Garland has taken his place, no, not all: Garland is going as the sixth man in our 4x400m relay squad.
The problem there, however, is Garland is only the 17th fastest man in Britain over 400m this year, 0.78 seconds slower than the man with the sixth fastest time, the 21-year-old Richard Strachan.
So, to recap, you've got two young, improving runners with credible claims for a place not going to Beijing, and one older runner going despite being showing no form whatsoever and possibly carrying an injury.
This is just the start of the Facebook furore. Delve a little deeper and you start to find lots of other axes which need grinding.
Why isn't Jo Ankier (third in the steeplechase at the trials) going? Why isn't sprinter Emma Ania worth an individual spot? Where is 1500m man Mike East? And what of high jumper Samson Oni?
And so on, and so on, and so on.
The problem here, of course, is that not everybody can or should go to Beijing. It isn't a nice thing to have to write, and it must be an even harder thing to judge, but the Olympics are a privilege, not a right.
The days when we would pad out our ranks with good eggs, long shots and loyal servants have passed. Quite simply, elite sport costs too much for that now.
Yates is a solid prospect and a wonderful example of what can be achieved with a new sense of purpose. But he has only run the "B" standard once. UKA's selection criteria ask for more than that. It has found to its cost that athletes who scrape into the biggest show on earth often get stage fright.
The same tough rationale can be used to explain almost every other 50/50 call the selectors have had to make.
The relay case is a stranger one.
Garland has been picked because he represents a "safe pair of hands", something he has proved when it mattered. But just how important are a safe pair of hands in the 4x400m?
There is no question this is a huge factor in the 4x100m (our sprint quartet had no business winning gold in Athens if you just look at their individual times), but do quick starts, slick changes and the ability to run bends really play such a significant part in a 1,600m race with three scruffy handovers?
There is clearly something about British one-lappers and a baton. The event (a rich source of medals for us over the years) has a Ryder Cup-like capacity to turn mediocre individuals into heroic team players. But the 17th fastest man this year?!?
Garland is, by all accounts, a good bloke who works hard but I can't help wondering if one of the group's members Matt Elias, a member of the 4x400m squad in Athens, had a point when he told me the selectors are just opening themselves up to accusations of favouritism with picks like this.
"Athletics shouldn't be about interpretation. It's not like football. If you run the time you should get in the team," Elias said.
Is he right? Can athletics be boiled down to brass-tack objectivity like that? Is it time to scrap the selection panel and pick from the rankings? Or is a US-style, last-man-standing contest at the trials what we need?
Answers on a postcard please...or you could get with the zeitgeist and post below (or on facebook, it's up to you).
About this blog
Links to the blogs of all the contributors can be found below.
Subscribe to BBC Sport: Olympics blog
You can stay up to date with BBC Sport: Olympics blog via these feeds.
BBC Sport: Olympics blog Feed(RSS)
BBC Sport: Olympics blog Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Olympics headlines
Visit the BBC Sport website
Visit the Olympics index
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Interesting article.
Perhaps the world of athletics needs a "house of Lords" type second level revue to vet the decision making process, catching out the odd unsuitable decision for second level analysis.
Belt and Braces etc to ensure robust decision making.
Four years (or even a lifetime) work and not to get picked is a disaster if you genuinely deserve it.
Complain about this comment
I assumed they meant "a safe pair of hands" in a purely metaphorical sense - someone who will run a 400m relay leg without going off too fast, tying up at the end, etc.
As for the times - perhaps the selectors think Birmingham is a faster track than St Peter Port?
Complain about this comment
Article stated Dale has showed no form whatsoever this year! ?? He ran a 45.8 relay Leg in the Europa cup. 2nd fastest split of any British athlete this year i would imagine. Only in form Rooney faster!!!
Complain about this comment
Fair point, Ellierunner, Dale has got pedigree with baton in hand. But aren't everybody's relay splits a second or so faster than their individual times?
But you're right, though, he is a solid relay performer.
Whether the 11 other guys quicker than him over 400m this year but not going to Beijing in the relay aren't equally solid is open to considerable debate.
What I can tell you is that I'm told by a well-placed source that Dale is the consummate team man and a pleasure to have around.
Good luck to him, I say, but I do have some sympathy for those left behind.
Complain about this comment
I dont think a second or so faster. Perhaps half a second, with 4th being a little faster due to not changing the batton on the way in. It makes sense when hurdlers are in form they run hurdles sure he will run fast soon. Good luck to all the guys and girls out there in the team!!! Go GB!!!!
Complain about this comment
I hardly doubt the UKA's going to be too bothered about the vast majority of members on that group - most of them are quite clearly politicised students and admit as much in their profiles.
It's not the first time in British sport that the public's chosen one has not been selected for a major event - Jimmy Greaves was passed over for selection for the world cup final squad back in 1966 and his replacement Geoff Hurst scored a hat trick. Few even remember that Jimmy Greaves was meant to be the star of the day. Leave UKA alone and let them live or die by the sword. Each and everyone of us would have our own unique squad selection.
Complain about this comment
But football is subjective and depends on tactics. A pure individual sport (which running is) is not.
The accusation of the group is not that of a jilted competitor, it os that a Lottery funded athlete who has failed is being taken over others just so that it looks like the right athletes have been funded.
If this happens too often then why should non-funded athletes even bother to try?
Complain about this comment
TadpoleThe1st u obviously didn't go through who is a member .If so you would find a mix of ex olympic athletes current GB athletes both senior and junior,current junior internationals , coaches and parents.Why such a mix? ,because this effects everyone in athletics the juniors especially .We have problems retaining the junior athletes as it is.
Complain about this comment
I think sometimes the selections sometimes miss the obvious. It seems to be quite a lot of time they look at potential rather then current ability because of 2012. I do wonder if we had lost 2012 whether we would be sending as many young athletes. It seems unfair on those who are doing well when it matters.
It also is so unfair on those who have tried so hard for their lifetime and maybe only have one shot but some rising star goes and steals it.
Complain about this comment
I have extreme pity for Strachan's situation because it is absolutely gob smacking. However, I think that Laura Turner's name being in this piece highlights what I have always said - "Athletics journalism in this country is the laziest in the world, whether it be TV or this internet piece. To get a few facts straight: Laura Turner was third in the trials - beating Emma Ania. She has picked up the third spot in the 100m as a result. She has also run the A qualifying twice this season and has the second fastest PB - with 11.19; ran last season before Osaka's world champs. She is also a proven championship runner with her semi final (sole GB female representation) in the World Championships and her Commonwealth final position where she unfortunately just missed the medal in 4th and picked up silver in the relay. Any other arguments against her selection suggests that we do not need trials and we should use the rankings. Which means: we should run our eye balls out at any stage of the season and forget the great coaching ability of getting our athletes to peak for majors, trials, etc.
To summarise and reinform: Laura Turner's selection is down to her THIRD place in the trials (3 spaces in the event!) and her qualifying time being reached. DONE. If UKA decided to over complicate things by looking at "Head-to-Heads", then she won that battle too. If we are going to use Facebook for factuaL pieces, please ask the passion driven users to get their facts straight. If I had the great gift of writing and I was a journalist, my research would extensive. Well beyond Facebook!
Dale Garland may not be the best person for the job, but he has feelings too, and doesn't deserve to feel inadequate before his biggest challenge. Laura Turner on the other hand, a true professional, will blow this jargon off of her shoulder and get on with what she does best. However, an apology to all readers and to her would be great!!
Complain about this comment
Welcome to Beijing!
www.tomap.cn
Complain about this comment
Ralleyne - are you Laura Turner? That was extremely defensive of you...
Complain about this comment
Ralleyne,
You're absolutely right about Laura Turner, apologies.
There was a bit more research to the piece than just looking at facebook (there were lots of accusations to check) but I probably concentrated too much on the Dale Garland-Richard Yates-Richard Strachan controversy and not enough on the other names thrown up.
So a big sorry to Laura, who did beat Emma Ania at the trials and also pips her on head-to-heads and PB. She's also two and a half years younger. Emma's advantage comes on fastest time this year (she is second in the rankings). That time was a very decent 11.21, 0.06 faster than Laura's fastest (and with a metre less tailwind....I thought a better do a bit of belated research).
I guess this is the kind of selection headache UKA likes....trying to get four "A" qualifiers into three spots. Bodes well for the relay.
As for Dale, I agree. His 45.8 split in Annecy has clearly impressed the selectors and fair play to him. In fact, I've just been on BBC Guernsey's breakfast show (not quite Up With the Partridge) to reassure them Dale is a worthy pick and this will all blow over very soon.
Complain about this comment
I can understand the difficulties involved in selecting the team.
I wonder if it is the same problem for the BBC. They seem to be taking more people than the team itself.!
Complain about this comment
Personally I think that the UKA selection policy is way to subjective and not transparent enough, it gives rise to far too many situations like this where 'slower' athletes are selected ahead of 'faster' ones etc.
For me the swimming selection criteria for team GB was spot on and the rules were clear and the swimmers knew what was required of them, do the qualifying time in the heats and come in the top 2 in the final - do that and they were on the plane. It's a harsh but very fair policy with every athlete treated the same regardless of whether they were funded or not.
Another advantage with this policy is it puts a lot of pressure on the athletes to perform with only one chance to get on the team, no appeals and no second chances giving everyone confidence that they can perform when the pressure is really on.
Complain about this comment
rafael alleyne...that was nice of you to stick up for your girlfriend like that..but the olympics are THIS year so times ran LAST year have little relevance...what a ridiculous comment to make
Complain about this comment
I dont understand what that has got to do with her being in the top 3 at the trials? I thought I did say that she ran the A qualifying twice this season. I will stick up for anyone who has to be on the receiving end of misinformed data. The public have a sordid view of track and field as it is - without details being incorrect.
Complain about this comment
The thing is with the selections that the selectors are often going to come under fire for a decision made one way or the other.
In the women's 100m yes Laura Turner has been chosen over Emma Ania for the individual spot. If we look on this years SB's then Ania should be chosen. No offence to Laura but she is a lot less likely to make a semi final/final then Emma. Yes she did beat Ania at the trial, but not with a time that will allow her to do 'amazingly' at the olympics (and by that I mean sneak into a final).
If Chambers had have been allowed to compete we would have had the same issue with the men. Do you take Pickering who has a SB of 10.19 over Tyrone Edgar who has a SB of 10.06? Pickering beat him in the trials but 10.19 would not make a final whereas 10.06 could. This headache was of course made a lot easier by Dwain not being allowed to compete. And although Craig is 5th/6th in the rankings it is easy to justify picking him over Devonish and Aikines-Aryeety as they have only run 0.01 seconds faster.
In the High Jump I was disappointed with the selectors, only leaving one space open after the first round of selections meaning that automatically one of Samson Oni or Martyn Bernard would be selected! This was extraordinary in my opinion. How could they justify choosing Germaine Mason who hadn't jumped the Olympic A standard this year but had it from last year, whereas Oni has jumped it indoors and out this year as had Bernard.
I believe this decision was made as Mason has jumped 2.34 in the past... giving him greater medal prospects over the others if he comes into form, but this contradicts the way they selected for Laura Turner over Ania (except for position at the trials of course). As it turned out Mason went on to jump 2.30 later in the week and justified his selection but it was extremely unfair on Oni and Bernard, knowing that one of them was not going to be taken on what would seem extremely unfair circumstances at the time.
I am disgusted that Rick Yates has not been selected. Yes maybe he may get 'stage fright' at the Olympics, but better now than in four years time in London! He has shown an extremely steep improvement curve and should have been preparing to head off for Beijing. How is it any different to taking Daniel Awde in the Decathlon? These athletes should be given the opportunity.
I hate the idea that people are putting across that it is a privilege to be selected for the Olympics... if people qualify they should be selected. Britain is not a poor country and we aren't good enough to be elitist like the Americans. If we don't take the athletes on the fringes we won't have as many inspiring performances where athletes rise to the occasion and get personal bests, we will just be seeing the athletes we expect to do well either doing as 'expected' or failing which just puts more of a downer on it for all of us.
On the big issue of Garland... well he has run an awesome split for 4x400 this year and in a way this justifies his selection. It's only the 6th spot after all! He may not even run! He doesn't exactly run that many outdoor 400's. Although his 47.52 at Loughborough last week was very sub standard. Hopefully instead of making Strachan feel that he has missed out, he will strive to run faster and maybe get towards an individual spot at Worlds next year.
Oh and just to add another selection 'dispute'. I personally wanted to see Hannah England selected for the 1500m but oh well that's just me.
Complain about this comment
for the bernard/oni thing i meant not selected*
Complain about this comment
Everyone makes mistakes but the selectors, with all the resources they have, should get it right 99% of the time. the mistakes they have made are rediculous.
Garland is a good runner and i'm sure a good bloke but there were 10 people who should have been selected ahead of him this year - major mistake
another major mistake is the selectors policy to take as small a team as possible, a very negative attitude. they seem to have looked for reasons not take people instead of a positive attitude to find reasons to take anyone who is young as has the olympic standard (A or B as both are bery high standards). This mistake in attitude has lead to errors such as the Yates case, and i'm sure others. Yates is someone who should have been selected, I can't think of any reason not to take him.
This is too many mistakes in one selection for the most important championships, and i'm sure other people feel there are more mistakes than i have mentioned. At best the selection process was mistake ridden although it could be as serious as corrupt, with favouritism to athletes and financial reasons (not taking people in what must be an effort to save money) deciding who goes instead of the athletes performance.
The selectors need regulating as their performance has been way below that of the athletes.
Complain about this comment
Rick Yates...
49.06... a big middle finger up to the selection panel. Olympic A standard. Unfortunately it is three days too late. The IAAF deadline for entries being the 23rd July. If this had have been three days earlier then UKA would have had no choice but to overturn their decision.
I kinda think this 'big meet' (Crystal Palace) should have been last week... when there was still a chance for athletes to qualify. Who cares about the 'send off event' for our athletes? Our athletes could have competed anywhere and we can't use travel as an excuse as people as far from the US and Australia have come here.
Yates now looks like he would have been one of our best shots for a finalist... still improving and looking ver ragged at the moment he could definitely run faster. He has catapulted himself to 22nd on the world lists and would have been in the top 15 (as US can only take 3) on the starts list.
Oh dear is all we can say as we shake our head at the one true dire decision by UK Athletics.
I thought the way our selection system worked was to allow athletes who were on the edge a chance to get in, much unlike the American system where it is incredibly cruel.
I think something needs to change. The selectors think they can do what they want with their policy but to steal others' words it is "too transparent". It is almost abused as a way of the selectors making sure their stats look good at the end of the year on the funding report. The funding system is a load of rubbish as it happens too. I know I will probably get shot down for this but too much funding is given to junior athletes.
For our system I think we should have a system of where if you come 1st or 2nd in the trials and are ranked in the top 3 and have the A standard then you automatically qualify. This covers the bases of rankings and performances on the day and irradicated the lunacy of saying... 'sorry, too old' etc. All the best ones will be in. Now there will be 1-3 places open still in all events. This can be given to either a top ranked athlete who failed at the trials or the next athlete in the rankings etc. There still has to be a discretionary point to it but it means that we won't leave people behind.
With the issue of a B standard I understand that the general rule is if an athlete has been to a major championships already then a B standard will not suffice to qualify for future championships (this being illustrated by Emeka Udechuku... went to Athens '04 but was not allowed to go to Osaka as he had only reached the B standard). Again this is silly, particularaly in the throws where iprovemtn often continues up to ~mid 30's.
We should always support the best we have if they get a B standard. I would rather we sent someone who isn't going to do amazing than have a smaller team. UKA has lost sight and unless a true medal hope emerges like the 400 girls or Idowu then they are stuck on the Relay. Look at the funding and tell me that it is not ridiculous how many athletes are funded with Relay next to their name. Then look how many events have junior athletes who are funded whereas their senior #1 counterparts are on less money than them or no money at all. Yes we need to look after future talent too but we can't just throw out our best athletes in search of new ones before they have even reached their prime.
Having business men and ex Rugby players in charge of our sport doesn't help (no offence to them but it doesn't exactly give the ideal background of what our sport is about - they haven't gone through the grass roots of athletics!). We need ex athletes to be higher up in the UKA mainframe rather than just as mentors, which although they are a cool thing to have we need athletes running the sport, people who actually know what makes an athlete tick and knows how the athletes are going to progress.
At first I didn't want to jin the facebook group vote no confidence for uk athletics but then again the issues are a lot greater than a few slip ups with selections.
Complain about this comment
The professionalism of UKA, particularly their selection policy, appears to be poor and certainly not business like, unless it is aimed at saving money. With regard to Ric Yates, as far as I'm aware UKA could have submitted his name on the team sheet to the IAAF before 23rd July and subsequently selected him if he ran multiple B standard times ... or the A standard. This is based on the information that I have been able to find. Please feel free to correct it.
In addition the IAAF selection criteria also includes the following addition:
"In athletics, in the specific case that an athlete who has not reached the minimum qualification standard before this date reaches it between 23 and 30 July 2008, the NOC, if it so wishes, may make a request to the IOC in order that this athlete may be considered for entry. The request must be submitted by 31 July 2008 at the latest. The IOC will, in consultation with the IAAF, then evaluate each case specifically."
Whether this still stands if an athlete has run the B, then subsequently the A standard I'm not sure. It doesn't clarify the "minimum standard" in the text, presumably this is the B.
For those interested, the full IAAF selection criteria can be found at:
http://www.iaaf.org/OLY08/standards/index.html
and the uka at:
http://www.ukathletics.net/world-class/olympic-and-paralympic-games-beijing-2008/
With regard to Rafael Alleynes comment, any good piece of journalism, or generally in the wider field of publication, should present all of the facts from which any conclusion is drawn. This will allow the conclusions to be analysed, questioned and possibly verified. Without noting Emma Ania's achievements such as a faster seasons best and representation in the European Cup, your post was not an accurate representation of the available data. Instead you drew a biased subjective conclusion and only presented the data which backed this up, so as to potentially avoid questions over its validity. It is possible for any piece to present some factual data and still be biased.
So to be fair your comment that "Athletics journalism in this country is the laziest in the world" was slightly hypocritical.
Sorry for the long post and rant
btw, I'm not a journalist
Complain about this comment
It seems to me the whole point of having the trials is so that the athletes can compete for a place at the Olympics. What's the point in taking part and coming in the top three, if your not going to be picked?
Selection should be based on who ever wins their event. I totally believe in the 'first past the post' principle. It certainly encourages competitiveness amongst the athletes, which is something our home grown talent is lacking, very much!
If you can't perform at the trials, what makes anybody think that they will be able to perform on the world stage. And if a man is injured, then so be it. If you get injured in the heats at the Olympics, or any other event for that matter, you're not given a bye to the final.
Lets take Chris Tommlinson for instance, he came fith in the Trials, but was still selected. So what if he's the British record holder, he didn't produce the goods when it mattered. But he was chosen over four other athletes who did. So, was he favoured by the selectors? Of course he was! No wonder there is such an air of apathy amongst all the other athletes!
Athletics is a dying sport in this country - but without a doubt it is caused by the political clickiness of those within UKA.
Complain about this comment
sorry 'logical opinion' but you are highly misinformed about your opinion on chris tomlinson. According to IAAF rules (not UKA rules) only two British athletes were eligible for Beijing in the Long Jump for attaining the A standard either this year or last... those being Chris and Greg. To be fair this is one of the better decisions they made. he may be a bit of a wild card at the moment but he jumped 8.18 this year (indoors) and got world indoor silver. Although not attaining the A standard this year 8.18 is still credible and he deserves his place more than people like Rick Yates and I thoroughly believe he deserves to be there.
2nd at the trial was Chris Kirk... 7.93... not even the B standard. Kirk has become a great athlete over the last few comps and his consistency has improved loads but he's not allowed to be sent under any rule so who is more deserving to go in the long jump?! It seems like you have just seen 5th and think 'that's crap'... but he was ill that day and was unlikely to compete and also put in a massive no jump so the potential is there.
Complain about this comment
you are just trying to jump on the bandwagon of slating UKA without having a justified conclusion of your own. I agree that things need to change but that view was just a load of crap honestly and you clearly don't have a very broad understanding of british athlete performances so think before you start picking on athletes who don't deserve it.
I feel Garland has been treated far too harshly too in this argument. He actually does deserve the 6th spot as much as any (based on his 4x400 split, but not the way he got it... he probably shouldn't have been at the Euro Cup for 4x400 other than the fact he was already out there for hurdles).
This argument is about having left additional people out, not about putting athletes in who you personally don't think should be there. As long as there are three in an event we should be happy.
Complain about this comment
GBjuniorAthlete
GBjuniorAthlete
Actually GB, I didn't just see Chris and think thats 'crap'. I've competed in athletics for the last 28 years and my opinion is not misinformed. Forget about qualifying standards, who cares what youv'e done in the past, its meaningless, its the present that counts.
I used Chris as an example of favouritism by the selectors. Which ever way you look at it, he didn't produce on the day - and thats what its all about. If I remember rightly he was also beaten by a former commonwealth gold medalist, who has also beaten him on many ocassions in the past. What do you say to him? So therefore, I must disagree with you.
If he was ill, who really cares, there's always a reason why an athlete doesn't produce, but you dont see the Americans whinge about it - they just accept their system and get on with things.
Their system is really the fairest way of doing things. If you don't do it on the day, you don't go.
The whole point about competing is getting your preperation spot on for when it matters, no excuses.
And by the way, I didn't mention anything about it being UKA rules. I merely stated that there is a political 'clickiness' within UK Athletics - and 'I am speaking' from experience.
Complain about this comment
GBjuniorAthlete
I can only assume that you were still ranting on about my comments in post 25.
If you are talented enough and choose to be an athlete and present yourself to the public eye - then you should also accept that your performance will be open to public scrutiny and criticism.
Many of them will not have a very good understanding of what it takes to be an athlete, but then, many of them will.
You should not assume that a person who made the comment, lacks either understanding, knowledge or experience - just because you disagree with what they have to say.
You must accept that their criticism is justified, because as an athlete, the money you earn or the funding you get is, directly or indirectly, drawn from the tax payers purse.
For me, my understanding, as I have mentioned, comes from competing in the sport for a number of years. It also comes with more than a reasonable understanding of what it takes to succeed in an event. Applied physiology, biomechanics, simple physics, anatomy, nutritional requirements, strength and conditioning, coaching skills, so on and so forth.
The public expects their athletes do well, and justifiably so. Yes, it takes hard work and dedication in order to compete for your country, but there are many people who live in the real world and have very real jobs, that don't pay very much and are not as enjoyable to do.
We have a right to expect the very best of our athletes and to offer criticism as and when we see fit.
Complain about this comment
I am not a fan of the 'quango' that is UKA. I personally believe that all involved in the running of UKA are a bunch of muppets chief amongst them being Dave Collins. The Rick Yates affair is a complete joke. On one hand they spout off about the 'future' and 2012 and then omit Yates. but dem it ok to take Kate Dennison (pole vault) and Zoe Derham (hammer). The illogical nature of the mindset of UKA beggars belief. I personally believe their 'World Class Podium' program rewards Athletes who will never achieve World/Olympic status however what is mind boggling is how Dale Garland at 27 can be on the 'World class development' programme yet has NEVER ran faster than the 'B' Standard and yet Yates is not included on any development programme. I am also starting to wonder if the BBC is in league with UKA. Their Athletics reporting team never question anything to do with UKA policies and Brendan Foster, someone who I have the greatest respect for, can only say about Yates '...can consider himself unfortunate not to be selected'. Understatement of the year Bren. Better of BBC put Paxman in charge to ask the real questions all us fan would like real answers to. Might also get to see Dave Collins squirm a bit in stead of the 'I'm alright jack what I says goes and must be right attitude'
Complain about this comment
I have always thought that if you are the fastest in the UK then you should go to whatever championship/games are on during that season.
Dave Collins comments about being gutted are quite frankley pretty hollow and once agian maybe he should have kept his mouth shut.
This article is almost a PR stunt for UKA in the way it portrays it as a whispering campaign. Far from it Facebook is a form of freedom of speech and I am not sure how it can be called a "whispering camapign" as every comment is made by somebody with a name and most with a picture on the sight and is a quite open to join. Just like the selection process.......?
Mr Slater, I do not think the missed opportunity of an Olympic Games is "mildly controversial" maybe you could explain your comment a bit more detail ?
Complain about this comment
Hi wildman, thanks for posting and I'm more than happy to answer your questions.
I'm sorry you think it's a PR stunt for UKA but it is obviously more balanced than the original facebook article. But you'd expect that, wouldn't you? I had to at least give UKA a chance to defend itself. And you're right, I found that defence pretty solid for the most part but you don't have to read too closely between the lines (I hope) to see I had a few doubts about the Dale Garland selection. ("But the 17th fastest man this year?!?")
With hindsight (the article was written before Rick Yates' amazing run at CP), I should have perhaps been more sceptical of the rationale for excluding him too. But at least that decision was backed up by the small print of the selection criteria - in that he had not run "multiple" Bs. Of course, that all looks a bit irrelevant now and Collins looks bad for not backing British talent. Tough job being a selector, though.
As for the "whispering campaign", that was a reference to what happened on the bus coming home from my school after a team was announced. I'm also not sure facebook is the open and transparent forum you suggest it is. Yes, I was able to guess the identity of a few posters but not all of them. I'm not a member of facebook (I delisted myself a year ago) so I don't have access to everybody's details and even if I did I wouldn't necessarily have been able to work out who everybody is. And are you really suggesting team's should be selected by committee? If you are, fair enough, I suppose we're about to see how that works with Ebbsfleet.
And I wrote "mildly controversial" because they had caused some controversy but could hardly be described (at the time) as headline-grabbers or absolute shockers. Neither Dale Garland or Richard Strachan are household names and we are talking about the 6th man in the relay squad here.
That said, if I was writing this piece again today (that old devil hindsight again), I would probably describe Yates's non-selection as "controversial".
Complain about this comment
From UKAthletics report of the LGP
400mh
In the men’s event, it looked to be a tough race in prospect for Trafford’s Richard Yates against a world class field, yet he performed excellently with a huge PB of 49.06 to take a well deserved second position and stir up the Palace crowd eager to see British success.
Yates said: “It’s great to run a PB. I was disappointed not to get selected for Beijing, but on a day like today with a big crowd at Crystal Palace it’s not like I needed any more motivation to run well… I’ve got to make sure I have the A standard next time.”
I'm pretty sure that when I watched the BBC Rick Yates had a little bit extra to say - possibly came where those 3 dots between "well" and "I’ve got to make sure I have the A standard next time.” I see that UKA are not adverse to some choice editing. 'elephant in the room' article on british-athletics.co.uk worth a read
Complain about this comment
That so much anger has been unleashed reveals the level of ill-feeling towards UKA.
And no wonder ...
Aggressive self-preservation seems time and again to be the UKA's first priority, and athletics itself comes a very distant second.
On the face of it, selection and funding seem to be used by UKA as crude mechanisms for vindicating previous UKA decisions or as tools to quash expressions by athletes of dissent or disquiet.
In short: they are a pretty nasty and incompetent bunch. But it is dangerous to say so.
Complain about this comment
I agree with all the support for Richard Yates and have emailed UKA, BOA and anyone I can think of. I never do this kind of thing but there is something extremely disappointing about bureaucracy and error winning out over effort and aspiration.
Yates was obviously inspired by the injustice, and the added confidence from another PB might make a u-turn a rare win-win situation.
I was extremely disappointed in the BBC commentary team on saturday not giving this obvious injustice more airing - there was a forced neutrality in their presentation and the questioning of Dave Collins. I would guess the ex-athletes all strongly sympathize with the boy, but that could only be detected in the silences. Well done to Kriss Akabusi for speaking up (I read somewhere) - it would be good if a few more past greats (Hemery, Pascoe, Rawlinson) got on the band wagon. Also if Lord Coe were to personally intervene I am sure this issue could be resolved.
Some might say this does not merit this attention - after he's only an outside shot for the final. But anyone who saw the performance at Crystal Palace would understand exactly why this kind of intervention is vital. Sport is for the athlete not the administrator.
I got a response from an earlier email (which was couched as a plea and studiedly avoided the temper tantrums on the facebook site) to UKA - they would not be able to reply probably until after the games as most of their officers are now on the way to Beijing.
Complain about this comment
I believe this issue over Rick has been the tip of the iceberg when it comes to seemingly randon way UKA picks its athletes. It would be very interesting to analyse how many athletes on funding have been picked over others who are not but who have run faster. If we look at the women's 4x400 Kim Wall has run nearly a second faster than Donna Fraser but isn't going. Fraser has been on funding since 2001 and can anyone else remember when she last got to a major championship final! It would seem that UKA have their favourites and that those who do not train with their favourite coaches will not get a look in. The whole set up is a disgrace and I feel the BBC presenters need to get tough with Dave Collins in interviews. Why do they let him get away with vague, unsatisfactory answers? The media is the only way to make UKA accountable and I do not feel it is doing its job.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS