Irish Olympic Marathon selection put on long finger

rom

London A standard now with 3 places

Ava Hutchinson 2:35:33
Catriona Jennings 2:36:14
Linda Byrne 2:36:21
Maria McCambridge 2:36:37

from http://corkrunning.blogspot.com/2012/03/maria-mccambridge-qualifies-for-london.html "The important point here though is that Ireland can only send three women athletes to the Marathon in the Olympics. There are still Marathons like Barcelona at the end of March and Rotterdam in early April and someone else may yet post a qualifying time from those. In light of that, the 16 second difference between Byrne and McCambridge may yet be all important but it may come down to current form and consistency if someone has to be dropped."

Pherekydes

rom wrote: »

London A standard now with 3 places

Ava Hutchinson 2:35:33
Catriona Jennings 2:36:14
Linda Byrne 2:36:21
Maria McCambridge 2:36:37

from http://corkrunning.blogspot.com/2012/03/maria-mccambridge-qualifies-for-london.html "The important point here though is that Ireland can only send three women athletes to the Marathon in the Olympics. There are still Marathons like Barcelona at the end of March and Rotterdam in early April and someone else may yet post a qualifying time from those. In light of that, the 16 second difference between Byrne and McCambridge may yet be all important but it may come down to current form and consistency if someone has to be dropped."

Rotterdam was today! Jennings posted her time there.

I think they should get together in a death match in a UFC cage. Four women enter; three leave. :pac:

Dan man

Maybe one of the girls could apply for citizenship of an East African country to solve the selection headache... I heard they're hard up for quality distance runners in that part of the world!

rom

Pherekydes wrote: »

Rotterdam was today! Jennings posted her time there.

I think they should get together in a death match in a UFC cage. Four women enter; three leave. :pac:

I am aware of that, was watching it today but the article stated that this could be an issue back then is all I am saying and "may come down to current form and consistency if someone has to be dropped" rather than just time.

Slogger Jogger

Its mad that there wasn't clearer criteria to split the contenders. I daresay Linda Byrne's 10k PB today will have helped her cause, in the current form stakes.

a_non_a_mouse

Well done to all 4 and just hope whoever does get the nod will all have a good run in London.
More than the max number of qualifiers for an Olympics.....that's not something that happens often in this country.
Is it proof that a plan (marathon project) and some good organization along with some talented and dedicated athletes will bring the results?
If so, I know there are plenty talented and dedicated athletes in other events besides the marathon, so here's to hoping that right plans get put in place elsewhere so that "4 into 3" situations become more common.

tang1

You go with age and the possibility of competing in future Olympics, McCambridge loses out. But if you go for experience in past Olympics she stays in. Its not going to be easy on whoever loses out. No doubt Linda Byrne running a 10k PB today will help her cause no end. So many factors to consider, Byrne & McCambridge achieved the qualifying time on what would be viewed as the tougher courses. They all deserve to go and represent there country, but unfortunately the rules don't allow this.

myflipflops

With no advance plan having put in place in advance to deal with this scenario, you simply have go with the 3 quickest on time. You cannot throw a 10k or half marathon trial race into the mix at this point. As much as it pains me, that means Maria McCambridge misses out as it stands.

Everyone should be required to prove from and fitness in the lead up to London.

Dan man

myflipflops wrote: »

With no advance plan having put in place in advance to deal with this scenario, you simply have go with the 3 quickest on time. You cannot throw a 10k or half marathon trial race into the mix at this point. As much as it pains me, that means Maria McCambridge misses out as it stands.

Everyone should be required to prove from and fitness in the lead up to London.

But as there is no substantial difference on times, surely it would be more appropriate to take other factors into consideration despite the lack of clarity. I agree though that 10k times shouldn't be over influential in terms of the selection. I think it'll go down to who they see has the most potential to improve as a marathon runner and by this I mean improve both in the short-term and long-term. Whilst arguably all can improve, there is perhaps more scope for improvement with the likes of Linda Byrne and even Jennings. I'm glad I won't have to make the call, wouldn't wish it on anyone and will be gutted for the runner who misses out.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

You have to factor in the course profiles of each of the times and how strong they finished. I would not be going merely on the fastest time.

shels4ever

Ben Sticky Hashish wrote: »

You have to factor in the course profiles of each of the times and how strong they finished. I would not be going merely on the fastest time.

It's defo not all about times the criteria takes into account form over the last 2 season, current form and previous championships or so i was told today, going on that Maria has the championships and a nice 10mile a few months ago. But can you not include the national marathon champ? or the only one sum 2:36 ... one thing is for sure the standard will be closer to 2:30 for the next olympics.

Goofy

myflipflops wrote: »

With no advance plan having put in place in advance to deal with this scenario, you simply have go with the 3 quickest on time. You cannot throw a 10k or half marathon trial race into the mix at this point. As much as it pains me, that means Maria McCambridge misses out as it stands.

Everyone should be required to prove from and fitness in the lead up to London.

There has been advance planning for this scenario. AAI released their nomination policy for London a couple of months ago. See here

shels4ever

Goofy wrote: »

There has been advance planning for this scenario. AAI released their nomination policy for London a couple of months ago. See here

from that its hard to leave Maria out.

myflipflops

Goofy wrote: »

There has been advance planning for this scenario. AAI released their nomination policy for London a couple of months ago. See here

Interesting. Who do the AAI have running their statistical analysis? Not sure if Patsy has the ability to produce "performance-time curves derived from longitudinal data"!

Seems like it will come down to a subjective decision with one athlete disappointed anyway.

I think Linda Byrne is safest due to her age and her perfromances over the shorter distance as well as being national champion. After that, it's harder to say.

robinph

What's with the sad face in the thread title?

There are only two people that have a reason for a , the person who gets left to behind and the person who has to tell them. Having a choice of who to send is a fantastic result.

fiddy3

4 into 3 does go, and it equals .75. It's simple. What needs to be done is amputate 25pc of each athlete, preferably from the knee down. We then attach carbon fibre blades which produce no lactic, never get injured and are many times more efficient than calves, con the iaaf with a sob story and faulty science, then hey presto, we've got a squad of women capable of running 2:10. I'd like to see Keitany and Shobukhova match that.

Pisco Sour

robinph wrote: »

What's with the sad face in the thread title?

There are only two people that have a reason for a , the person who gets left to behind and the person who has to tell them. Having a choice of who to send is a fantastic result.

Exactly! This is a wonderful situation to be in. I wish this was a more regular occurance. Yeh it sucks for the person who doesn't get to go, but that's the rules. There's about 56325 Kenyas who have A-Standards but won't be in London. There's probably 30-40 Americans with A-Standards for the 100m who wont make the Olympics!

thirstywork2

Linda Byrne should and will be picked.She beat two of the other girls in Dublin
and ran a 10k pb in Enniscorthy of 32.53 with Maria just behind in 33.08.
She is proven in major champs from junior-u23 and being one of the youngest i would send her.
You can't base your selections on shorter distances as the marathon is the marathon.In the USA if this was the case Dathan Ritzenhein would have been picked having ran 12.56 for 5k and 60mins flat for the half.

The selection won't be based on time due to the differn't courses.
I expected maria to run faster after her record run in ballycotton 54.48 but with the experience of an Olympics behind her she would be my second pick.

It's a great situation to have 4 and reading Jenning's article in the Indo on Sunday you can tell the marathon mission has helped greatly and pushed all the girls on.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/athletics-distance-education-plots-route-to-success-3081298.html

Middle Distance

What a super run by Catriona Jennings in the Rotterdam marathon yesterday in her 2nd ever time over the marathon distance. It will certainly make the selection of the women's team for the Olympic Marathon an interesting one for the selectors as 4 women have now qualified with only 3 places up for grabs!

Brianderunner

It's gotta be the 3 fastest, otherwise politics comes into it. I've seen some questionable team selections from the AAI at the european xc down through the years.

Seriously though 2'37 is way too soft. As shels alluded to it will be more like 2'32 next time. Just looking through the London marathon booklet 10 women from the UK have gone sub 2'37, and thats only counting those who are running London next Sunday, thats nuts. It's not exactly Jamaican sprinters we're dealing with here.

robinph

They need 2:30 I think to be considered for the last UK place.

Pisco Sour

Brianderunner wrote: »

Seriously though 2'37 is way too soft. As shels alluded to it will be more like 2'32 next time. Just looking through the London marathon booklet 10 women from the UK have gone sub 2'37, and thats only counting those who are running London next Sunday, thats nuts. It's not exactly Jamaican sprinters we're dealing with here.

Have to agree with regards the qualification standard. Seems wrong that we have 4 fighting for 3 spots in the marathon when somebody like Joanne Cuddihy isn't even guaranteed of an Olympic spot yet. Qualification standards across the events just aren't comparable. Imagine if she ran 51.56 or if Gillick ran 45.31 and both were left at home while 2:36:xx got to go to London. Just doesn't seem right. But that's just the way it is and the marathon can support a bigger field.

Having said all that, it is great to see Ireland having more than 3 qualifiers in an event. You'd think the AAI would have some sort of contingency plan in place for this though. It's hardly a shock to be honest. People have predicted that this could happen for a few months now.

Kurt Godel

Marathon delay troubling athletes- Irish Times

WHAT BEGAN as a dream scenario for Irish distance running has turned into a selection nightmare, with three of the women qualified for the London Olympic marathon now pleading with Athletics Ireland to make the big wake-up call sooner rather than later.

Although four women have run under the necessary A-standard of 2:37.00, only three of them can be sent to London – the same as every other country – which inevitably means one missing out: their problem, however, is not finding out until June 12th, the date Athletics Ireland have set for nominating their marathon and race walk selections to the Olympic Council of Ireland (OCI), as originally agreed last year.

Three of the Irish women qualified – Linda Byrne, Maria McCambridge and Caitriona Jennings – yesterday outlined what they felt was the needlessly anxious wait, visibly frustrated at their enduring state of limbo. “I’m head-wrecked,” said McCambridge, who ran 2:36.37 in Rome on March 18th. “I just wish they’d let us know, I really think it’s unfair to keep us waiting.

“Because the delay does affect your training. If I’m not being selected I’d like to know now, get it over with, and maybe get ready for the European Championships, or target the 10,000 metres qualifying time. But right now I don’t know what to do. I don’t want to rock the boat, but in my personal opinion, yes, bring the selection forward.”

Jennings was the most recent qualifier with her 2:36.17 in Rotterdam on April 15th, and also believes a prompt decision would benefit everyone: “It’s just crazy,” said Jennings, who has also just taken four months leave of absence from work to prepare for London.

“I can understand if they’re trying to give everyone the chance to qualify. But if you’re going to qualify for the Olympic marathon you’d want to do it very soon, otherwise you’re just not going to recover.”

For Byrne, who was the first to qualify with her 2:36.26 in Dublin last October, which doubled as the national championship, there is probably the strongest claim on selection, yet she too believes Athletics Ireland has created an unnecessarily awkward wait, not helped by the vague qualifying criteria to begin with.

“Nearly every other country has their marathon team picked by now,” she said, “so it would have been fairer if we had our selection in the next couple of weeks. I know the selectors are in a tough position, but there would have been less hassle now if they had at least one automatic selection, say in the Dublin Marathon. The fact is that all of the girls that have got the qualifying time, or are trying for it, were all in the Dublin marathon anyway. But there’s nothing we can do about it now.”

Pasty McGonagle, the Athletics Ireland team manager for London, reacted to these concerns last night, admitting they were “understandable”, but that all the athletes had already signed up to the London selection agreement.

“So as of now that selection criteria stands, hasn’t changed,” said McGonagle. “But if there is still any room for manoeuvre then that will have to be agreed with both Athletics Ireland and the OCI.

“We do understand the dilemma, although the selection criteria here doesn’t just apply to the women’s marathon, but other events too, and there could be a similar situation with the men’s 50km walk. So there are other issues to be considered.”

Stupid athletes. I mean, their frustration at not knowing which event to train for, while understandable, should always be trumped by da rules set by the committee boys. Paper doesn't push itself, you know.

Pisco Sour

I think this is our queue to be joined by Fish n Chips

Pherekydes

They should have set the date for the day after London, but it's too late to change it now. Others are attempting to qualify. It's only fair that they get the chance.

TFBubendorfer

Pasty McGonagle, the Athletics Ireland team manager for London, reacted to these concerns last night, admitting they were “understandable”, but that all the athletes had already signed up to the London selection agreement.

Don't you just love this? The athletes have already signed up to the "selection agreement".

As if that was down to the athletes!!!

robinph

How does the 50k walk selection affect the marathon selection?

They have 4 to pick from for the marathon, no chance of anyone else getting a time now (and if they do then they won't be fit again in time so can be disregarded) but you could easily have one of the marathon runners that doesn't go for that event step forward for a spare 10k place if there is one going.

No reason to leave the selection so late. Only thing that can change now is someone getting injuries, but waiting won't change that.

average_runner

Decision should of been made at end of April. But then again, in this country we cant run any sport professionally.

plodder

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Don't you just love this? The athletes have already signed up to the "selection agreement".

As if that was down to the athletes!!!

I think what they signed up to, was the criteria, which included the possibility of competing in a marathon on May 20, to get the qualifying time.

I think the OP's characterising this as just putting it on the long finger is a bit unfair.

Pisco Sour

robinph wrote: »

but you could easily have one of the marathon runners that doesn't go for that event step forward for a spare 10k place if there is one going.

I agree they should not be kept waiting, but not one of the 4 runners will be getting within an asses roar of the 10000m standard.

T runner

plodder wrote: »

I think what they signed up to, was the criteria, which included the possibility of competing in a marathon on May 20, to get the qualifying time.

I think the OP's characterising this as just putting it on the long finger is a bit unfair.

I dont think athletes had any power to disagree with this criteria. An athlete not signing up presumably would mean nothing bar a worry of self exclusion, and at the end of teh day the responsibility is with the governing body not with athletes or not to be buck passed to athletes.

The fact is that it takes at least 4 months to prepare adequately for an elite marathon. An athlete qualifying for the olympics on May 20th will need 3 weeks recovery minimum and she would need a few weeks working on the aspects of running lost during the latter stages of marathon preparation. If she doesnt do the latter she will be flat at the outset of training. Thats in effect 1st June before marathon preparation can begin only 5 weeks before the olympic marathon.
If she goes straight into a marathon buildup after 3 week recovery she has 8 weeks. Its not long enough. What were they thinking.

Now we have 4 athletes training for a marathon without the full stimulus, commitment and determination that knowledge of a definate starting position brings.

plodder

T runner wrote: »

I dont think athletes had any power to disagree with this criteria. An athlete not signing up presumably would mean nothing bar a worry of self exclusion, and at the end of teh day the responsibility is with the governing body not with athletes or not to be buck passed to athletes.

The fact is that it takes at least 4 months to prepare adequately for an elite marathon. An athlete qualifying for the olympics on May 20th will need 3 weeks recovery minimum and she would need a few weeks working on the aspects of running lost during the latter stages of marathon preparation. If she doesnt do the latter she will be flat at the outset of training. Thats in effect 1st June before marathon preparation can begin only 5 weeks before the olympic marathon.
If she goes straight into a marathon buildup after 3 week recovery she has 8 weeks. Its not long enough. What were they thinking.

Now we have 4 athletes training for a marathon without the full stimulus, commitment and determination that knowledge of a definate starting position brings.

Fair point. End of May seems ludicrously late all right.

macinalli

There was another interesting point in the article about Barbara Sanchez (dual nationality) hoping to run the A standard in Copenhagen on May 20th. I've no idea if she's likely to make that time, but given that they said the decision would be made in June I guess they have to wait to see if she can do it. Just to make it a bit more complicated!

jeffontour

Does anyone know what process was used to agree the June 12th date for nomination of participants? There can't have been much athlete(let me be even more specific, marathoner) input to that decision.

I was going to write a longer reply but frankly I'm just too p1ssed off to bother. The athletes may have known the dates going into the process but sure they had bigger fish to fry, such as running the bloody times.

I hope the 3 that go make the most of their chance and are happy with their performance on the day. And for the unlucky 4th runner hopefully they use it as motivation to drive them on further.

TFBubendorfer

T runner wrote: »

I dont think athletes had any power to disagree with this criteria. An athlete not signing up presumably would mean nothing bar a worry of self exclusion, and at the end of teh day the responsibility is with the governing body not with athletes or not to be buck passed to athletes.

Exactly! To then use the fact that they had signed an agreement that they really had no choice about as an excuse is utterly ridiculous. That is extremely bad management, nothing else.

Patrick_K

What a ridiculous situation.
They obviously can't change it at this stage as other athletes may be trying to qualify but if they want to help out those who have qualified they could rank the 4 currently qualified ladies so at least they know where they stand at the moment.

PK

robinph

Patrick_K wrote: »

What a ridiculous situation.
They obviously can't change it at this stage as other athletes may be trying to qualify but if they want to help out those who have qualified they could rank the 4 currently qualified ladies so at least they know where they stand at the moment.

PK

But if anyone was to qualify now what race would it be in and should they really be considered suitable for it if they did a time in Cork for instance? No time to get ready, would make for a nice course record round Cork no doubt.

Patrick_K

Completely agree Robin, chances of it happening now must be pretty slim and would be far from ideal prep but they can't just go and change the dates at this stage.

thirtyfoot

The key to preventing this happening again is to make the marathon standard in line with all other events, ie, harder. Then, for the foreseeable future, we won't have more than 3 qualifiers in an event.

Pisco Sour

thirtyfoot wrote: »

The key to preventing this happening again is to make the marathon standard in line with all other events, ie, harder. Then, for the foreseeable future, we won't have more than 3 qualifiers in an event.

In Australia they have made their qualification for the men's marathon sub 2:12. Not sure what the women's is but I'd imagine it would be close to 2:30. Although, I think they are overly strict IMO. The marathon standard is weak, but that's not the athletes fault. Surely they could have done what most nations do and pick the marathon team in early April. Waiting until late May shows a gross lack of knowledge and indeed respect for the event.

RayCun

thirtyfoot wrote: »

The key to preventing this happening again is to make the marathon standard in line with all other events, ie, harder. Then, for the foreseeable future, we won't have more than 3 qualifiers in an event.

Or just pick some more sensible dates - time must be run by end of April, decision will be made first week in May. It's not like "too many women have run the A standard" is a common problem for Irish athletics.

pistol_75

04072511 wrote: »

In Australia they have made their qualification for the men's marathon sub 2:12.

They did the same for GB but then relaxed it when Lee Merrien didn't make the time in London.

Makes no sense to keep the athletes waiting as everyone seems to agree on.

What is the best we can hope from any of them?

thirtyfoot

RayCun wrote: »

It's not like "too many women have run the A standard" is a common problem for Irish athletics.

Thats because the standard is weak. That is the problem, whoever set the standard made a big mistake and probably didn't properly consider more than 3 would get it. A similar standard in other events would see us over subscribed there too.

Men 100 - Probably 3
Men 200 - Probably 5
Mens 400 - Probably 3
Mens 110H - Probably 2
Mens 400H - Probably 5

Thats just mens sprints. Mens middle distance would be a disaster, 6 or 7 per event in the mens. Harder standards, its the Olympics after all.

If a harder standard was set though, there probably would have been uproar.

A good problem to have though all the same.

RayCun

thirtyfoot wrote: »

That is the problem, whoever set the standard made a big mistake and probably didn't properly consider more than 3 would get it.

It's the Olympic A standard, it wasn't set by anyone in Ireland. AFAIK the last few selections have used the same Olympic A standard, weak as it may be, and didn't have four athletes hitting it.
The problem is not that four people have the qualifying time, it's that those four have to wait too long to find out who is going. You could have the same problem with a tougher standard if you had the same messing around on the selection committee.

hardCopy

Couldn't they at least eliminate one of the four already qualified and call the others a provisional team? That way they can at least have some idea if they're going, unless somebody new hits the standard in the next few weeks.

robinph

Having a lot to choose from is only a problem for the selectors. It doesn't matter a bit to the athletes if there are ten other people with a qualifying time, you still have to better than them to give yourself the best chance of getting the spot.

BoA confirmed that Paula, Mara and Scott Overall had their places last year, now someone could have come along and got a faster time but that wouldn't have changed things greatly. By confirming those people places early enough it give them the best chance of being ready come the important day in August.

Pisco Sour

RayCun wrote: »

It's the Olympic A standard, it wasn't set by anyone in Ireland. AFAIK the last few selections have used the same Olympic A standard, weak as it may be, and didn't have four athletes hitting it.
The problem is not that four people have the qualifying time, it's that those four have to wait too long to find out who is going. You could have the same problem with a tougher standard if you had the same messing around on the selection committee.

Each country can come up with their own standards if they like, as long as the qualification mark that they choose is faster than the A-Standard. That is what he is referring to.

RayCun

04072511 wrote: »

Each country can come up with their own standards if they like, as long as the qualification mark that they choose is faster than the A-Standard. That is what he is referring to.

Yes, I know.
But the A Standard has been used for the last few Olympics, and hasn't lead to the problem of there being too many qualified athletes.
And if they set a tougher standard they could still be caught out by having too many qualified athletes, which is why it is important to have the selection process sorted out and reasonable dates for the decisions.

thirtyfoot

RayCun wrote: »

It's the Olympic A standard.

Yes indeed.

RayCun wrote: »

, it wasn't set by anyone in Ireland. .

But someone in Ireland can make it harder if they want. I think they should.

RayCun wrote: »

. AFAIK the last few selections have used the same Olympic A standard, weak as it may be, and didn't have four athletes hitting it.
.

True, so we have 4 now and when the rest (we could name half a dozen) realise how weak it is they will chase it for Rio unless its toughened. Then we'll have 10!

RayCun

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Then we'll have 10!

Excellent! So the selection committee will have a strong field to choose from. None of the athletes will complain about their 2.36 not being good enough if they're beaten by a 2.34. But they might all complain if they have to wait until a month before the games to find out...

Pisco Sour

thirtyfoot wrote: »

True, so we have 4 now and when the rest (we could name half a dozen) realise how weak it is they will chase it for Rio unless its toughened. Then we'll have 10!

This is a good point. Compare the marathon A-Standard to equivelent performances in other events:

10000m - 33:24 (A-Standard is 31:45)
5000m - 15:51 (A-Standard is 15:20)
3000m Steeplechase - 10:12 (A-Standard is 9:43)
1500m - 4:17 (A-Standard is 4:06)
800m - 2:05 (A-Standard is 1:59)

The marathon standard isn't just weaker than the others. It is off the planet weaker than the rest. More and more will target the marathon over coming Olympics Games as it provides an easier path. It could be 6-7 next time around.

Just, as an aside, the 400m equivalent of the marathon qualifier is 53.87. Joanne Cuddihy has run 51.69 so far, and still isn't guaranteed her place. In fact the entire 4x400m team are under the equivalent time of the marathon qualifier. The B-Standards in every other event are significantly tougher than the Marathon A-Standard.

None of this is the fault of the athletes. It is a smart move targetting a softer standard, but there is a case for strengthening our qualification criteria for the marathon going forward.