Rio 2016 Marathon Qualification, whos trying?

@ppmarathon

Paul Pollock ‏@ppmarathon 18s19 seconds ago
Gutted that I won't get the opportunity to complete this training block @LondonMarathon.Stress response after Cardiff so time to be sensible

Wild Garlic

Chivito550 wrote: »

Unless he's been told he is selected, and so is giving London a miss, in which case that would be a sensible decision. Could he have been selected based on his fantastic World half performance, despite being 4th ranked Irishman over the full?

If that is the case then yes a wise decision.
But the rumour is he has an injury and if this is the case it would make the selectors jobs a lot easier. I'm still googling like mad.....

average_runner

morceli wrote: »

Sad news if he is injured, I wouldn't be to happy had he been selected based on his half as the are different events. Like picking a 1500m runner to run the 5k. For some it will translate others it won't.
Easiest thing for the selectors would have been for him to run 2:13 and not even raced the half.

What's his fastest marathon time compare to the rest of the lads?

tang1

Confirms it:

Wild Garlic

Exactly wrote: »

Paul Pollock ‏@ppmarathon 18s19 seconds ago
Gutted that I won't get the opportunity to complete this training block @LondonMarathon.Stress response after Cardiff so time to be sensible

Sounds a bit vague. He is not ruling himself out of Rio.
I think the powers that be should make the call for him one way or another.

Chivito550

He has the best chance of doing well in Rio if fit and healthy but:

1) He doesn't seem to be able to get his body in peak shape for a marathon

and

2) Ethically, it just wouldn't be right to select him when he's not only 4th ranked Irishman, but the 4th ranked Irishman in the same race, in Berlin last year.

I think we know who our 3 representatives will be now.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

He has the best chance of doing well in Rio if fit and healthy but:

1) He doesn't seem to be able to get his body in peak shape for a marathon

and

2) Ethically, it just wouldn't be right to select him when he's not only 4th ranked Irishman, but the 4th ranked Irishman in the same race, in Berlin last year.

I think we know who our 3 representatives will be now.

Ah, but the AAI always throws in a surprise!!!

ultrapercy

Wild Garlic wrote: »

If that is the case then yes a wise decision.
But the rumour is he has an injury and if this is the case it would make the selectors jobs a lot easier. I'm still googling like mad.....

He can't be selected based on a half. The current holders of the 3 fastest times all beat him in Berlin so should automatically be selected(provided no further change in London etc).Anything else would be unfair and a manipulation of the criteria to suit one man. It's extremely sad for him and my heart goes out to him, sport can be very cruel.

dublin runner

average_runner wrote: »

Ah, but the AAI always throws in a surprise!!!

They have my number and know where I am. The ball is in their court now.

average_runner

ultrapercy wrote: »

He can't be selected based on a half. The current holders of the 3 fastest times all beat him in Berlin so should automatically be selected(provided no further change in London etc).Anything else would be unfair and a manipulation of the criteria to suit one man. It's extremely sad for him and my heart goes out to him, sport can be very cruel.

Is his pb over the distance faster than the rest?

ultrapercy

average_runner wrote: »

Is his pb over the distance faster than the rest?

No Berlin was a pb but his pb is irrelevant if not achieved in the selection window.

dublin runner

I think the selection is done and dusted. I feel terribly for Pollock (being the best marathon runner in the country in my opinion) but delighted for Sergiu. It would have been very cruel for him to miss out on the games, especially given the small margins involved and the joke that is the selection policy.

morceli

average_runner wrote: »

What's his fastest marathon time compare to the rest of the lads?

his pb was from Berlin so slower then the others

average_runner

average_runner wrote: »

Is his pb over the distance faster than the rest?

He was injured running Berlin as well. I have no doubts he is the best runner we have available at the moment but he is unable to complete a training cycle in the last year fit and well.

His debut Marathon was a 2:16:30 in Dublin in 2012. If he could run that in Dublin the potential is there for a good bit quicker if fully fit and things go well on the day.

Who knows if the injury is too bad to run London or if he has been told not to worsen it by running and get fit for Rio.

average_runner

Exactly wrote: »

He was injured running Berlin as well. I have no doubts he is the best runner we have available at the moment but he is unable to complete a training cycle in the last year fit and well.

His debut Marathon was a 2:16:30 in Dublin in 2012. If he could run that in Dublin the potential is there for a good bit quicker if fully fit and things go well on the day.

Who knows if the injury is too bad to run London or if he has been told not to worsen it by running and get fit for Rio.

If he can't compete a marathon training window fully fit, he can't be considered for Rio. Thats hard i know, but only fair.

Chivito550

Exactly wrote: »

He was injured running Berlin as well. I have no doubts he is the best runner we have available at the moment but he is unable to complete a training cycle in the last year fit and well.

His debut Marathon was a 2:16:30 in Dublin in 2012. If he could run that in Dublin the potential is there for a good bit quicker if fully fit and things go well on the day.

Who knows if the injury is too bad to run London or if he has been told not to worsen it by running and get fit for Rio.

Lets not forget he came 21st (second European) in the tough Moscow heat in the World Championships. His PB is not indicative of his ability. I actually value championship performances more. Perhaps AAI should have encouraged athletes to go to Beijing last year as experience, and as a method of selection for Rio. They made it perfectly clear they didn't want anybody competing, and shifted the goalposts for selection, with the added affect that we lost Sinead Diver as a result.

Chivito550

Chivito550 wrote: »

Lets not forget he came 21st (second European) in the tough Moscow heat in the World Championships. His PB is not indicative of his ability. I actually value championship performances more. Perhaps AAI should have encouraged athletes to go to Beijing last year as experience, and as a method of selection for Rio. They made it perfectly clear they didn't want anybody competing, and shifted the goalposts for selection, with the added affect that we lost Sinead Diver as a result.

Wasn't it Sonia who said a few weeks ago he should have been told after Cardiff he was picked and to pull out of London.

youngrun

Exactly wrote: »

Wasn't it Sonia who said a few weeks ago he should have been told after Cardiff he was picked and to pull out of London.

AAI may have taken her advice?

Chivito550

Exactly wrote: »

Wasn't it Sonia who said a few weeks ago he should have been told after Cardiff he was picked and to pull out of London.

I think so yeh. I don't agree with her. He should have pulled out of the half to be ready for the full, if the possibiltiy of breaking down was a worry. Imagine selecting a guy for 400m who had a slower time than somebody else, but who impressed more over 200m. It's utterly ridiculous.

Chivito550

youngrun wrote: »

AAI may have taken her advice?

Perhaps. And perhaps the injury isn't legit, but an easier way to get out of running London, than to admit he has been told he is already selected, as that would cause war.

Let the conspiracy theories begin!

Krusty_Clown

Anyone know what the cut-off is to declare which individuals will travel/compete? Could you line up Pollock and declare a reserve, up until the cut-off point?

morceli

Chivito550 wrote: »

Perhaps. And perhaps the injury isn't legit, but an easier way to get out of running London, than to admit he has been told he is already selected, as that would cause war.

Let the conspiracy theories begin!

Yes that would be interesting , need to go back over the policy but not sure his half even matters in the selection, so might need to be selected based on this time in Berlin which is possible , but controversial .

youngrun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Perhaps. And perhaps the injury isn't legit, but an easier way to get out of running London, than to admit he has been told he is already selected, as that would cause war.

Let the conspiracy theories begin!

Probably what happened. I wonder have the three ahead of him on times been let know.

Plodman

They also have to "prove their fitness" song think there would be war if he says he is injured and then got selected anyway. Very interesting though!!

Chivito550

Assuming the injury is legit, the AAI have completely got out of jail here, with the decision being made so easy for them. They won’t learn anything from all this, and will come back with the same ridiculously vague criteria for Tokyo 2020.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

They won’t learn anything from all this, and will come back with the same ridiculously vague criteria for Tokyo 2020.

what should the criteria be?

average_runner

RayCun wrote: »

what should the criteria be?

The two fastest from the first qualifying period and then a run off in the dublin marathon for the rest providing they have the qualifying time before that run off.

Nice and simple.

youngrun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Unless he's been told he is selected, and so is giving London a miss, in which case that would be a sensible decision. Could he have been selected based on his fantastic World half performance, despite being 4th ranked Irishman over the full?

If so surely AAI should announce it and let the other athletes know , still time for those on the edge to go again ??

RayCun

average_runner wrote: »

The two fastest from the first qualifying period and then a run off in the dublin marathon for the rest providing they have the qualifying time before that run off.

Suppose Fionnuala McCormack is injured in early 2019. She doesn't have a Q time in the first period, and doesn't have the time before a Dublin marathon run off.

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

what should the criteria be?

Under the old qualification mark of 2:17 it wouldn't work, but if the adjusted standard remains at 2:19 for Tokyo, then the top 2 from the Dublin Marathon 2019 should be selected (assuming they get the standard in the process), with the remaining spot going to the fastest non qualifier as at 30th April 2020.

I would have suggested using the World Championships in 2019 as a trial for one place, as it will be a test of how well an athlete competes in a championship setting, but with the ludicrous decision to host 2019 Worlds in Doha, and as a result the event taking place in October, with a midnight marathon, I would strongly discourage any Irish athlete from bothering with that.

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

Suppose Fionnuala McCormack is injured in early 2019. She doesn't have a Q time in the first period, and doesn't have the time before a Dublin marathon run off.

Yeh I personally would always keep 1 place free for situations like that. So 2 selected in Autumn 2019, then 1 further selection in the Spring.

Of course, the standard on the women's side is so weak, that it is inconceivable that Fionnuala McCormack would not be able to run a qualification time, but that's a different debate entirely.

morceli

RayCun wrote: »

Suppose Fionnuala McCormack is injured in early 2019. She doesn't have a Q time in the first period, and doesn't have the time before a Dublin marathon run off.

Then she doesn't go , I like that rule but I would have an option that if you do have a world class runner then then get selected.
For example pick first two with the time in Dublin, but if you have a male who is injured at the time but runs 2:10 in the window he gets selected and 2:26 for a women.

RayCun

what if Dublin 2019 is a horribly wet and windy days, times are down across the board - or the qualifying time comes down again, to 2:18 - and only one qualifies?
What if Pollock and Seaward are injured/out of form in October, but both run 2:13 in Rotterdam, and the second guy in Dublin ran 2:18:59?

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

what if Dublin 2019 is a horribly wet and windy days, times are down across the board - or the qualifying time comes down again, to 2:18 - and only one qualifies?
What if Pollock and Seaward are injured/out of form in October, but both run 2:13 in Rotterdam, and the second guy in Dublin ran 2:18:59?

Have you any ideas of your own?

If they are injured/ out of form in October then that is tough luck.

If only one qualifies in Dublin then there are 2 spots open for the 30 April 2020 deadline.

If the qualification time comes down to 2:18, then you can have 1 spot available for DCM, 1 spot available for fastest marathon at 31 December 2019, and one spot for the fastest non qualified at the 30 April 2020.

The important thing is to take as much subjectivity, judgement and interpretation out of things, and make the process simple and clear. We don't need a 5 page document to justify the High Performance Director's salary. It can be made so much simpler.

morceli

RayCun wrote: »

what if Dublin 2019 is a horribly wet and windy days, times are down across the board - or the qualifying time comes down again, to 2:18 - and only one qualifies?
What if Pollock and Seaward are injured/out of form in October, but both run 2:13 in Rotterdam, and the second guy in Dublin ran 2:18:59?

The injury part doesn't really stand up, there is the same chance you can miss the Olympic due to injury sickness, and that is just unlucky that you miss out.
If you have a world class time and run it in the window then you can make the team, if not then your staying home. Thinking about it the 2:10 is a bit fast, i would say 2:12 and you can get the 3rd spot, but the rest need to run the trial.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Have you any ideas of your own?

My idea is that we want three things:

• clearly defined rules so the athletes to know exactly what they have to do to qualify,
• the athletes to know early if they have qualified
• the best athletes to be sent

and those three things are often in contradiction.

The earlier we make a decision, the more likely we are to exclude people who are coming into form as the championship approaches.
The sharper the rules are, the easier it is to think of situations where the best athletes would not be chosen by those rules

Chivito550 wrote: »

If they are injured/ out of form in October then that is tough luck.

But would you really be saying 'tough luck' if the selection team left out athletes who you thought were clearly better than the ones selected?

morceli

RayCun wrote: »

But would you really be saying 'tough luck' if the selection team left out athletes who you thought were clearly better than the ones selected?

If they didn't beat them, then they are not better. Its not like we are talking about leaving out a John Tracey or anything. You put rules in please to ensure that doesn't happen. But when you have 1/2 minutes between your runners at 2:13/15 there isn't much difference.

RayCun

morceli wrote: »

The injury part doesn't really stand up, there is the same chance you can miss the Olympic due to injury sickness, and that is just unlucky that you miss out.

You can be injured when the Olympics are on, and yeah, that's just bad luck.

But to be injured a year before the Olympics, recover, and run a time faster than two of the athletes selected, within the qualification period, and still not be selected...?

morceli

RayCun wrote: »

But to be injured a year before the Olympics, recover, and run a time faster than two of the athletes selected, within the qualification period, and still not be selected...?

Yes unless your world class and run below a set time i.e 2:12

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

My idea is that we want three things:

• clearly defined rules so the athletes to know exactly what they have to do to qualify,
• the athletes to know early if they have qualified
• the best athletes to be sent

and those three things are often in contradiction.

The earlier we make a decision, the more likely we are to exclude people who are coming into form as the championship approaches.
The sharper the rules are, the easier it is to think of situations where the best athletes would not be chosen by those rules




But would you really be saying 'tough luck' if the selection team left out athletes who you thought were clearly better than the ones selected?

It's hard to get a perfect selection policy, but the ones proposed are clear and most importantly don't leave athletes hanging on until relatively close to the Games to find out if they have or haven't been selected. In events such as the marathon and 50k Walk selections need to be made well in advance.

2 selections made by 31 December 2019 (either 1 in DCM and 1 from fastest elsewhere, or 2 from DCM, depending on qualification standard. If nobody runs qualification time at DCM, then top 2 from elsewhere selected)

1 more selection made by 30 April 2019 to the fastest person not already selected.

It is clear to follow, not open to interpretation, yet still leaves an opportunity for athletes who got injured, or simply had a shocker in Autumn 2019.

The current method is ridiculous.

RayCun

morceli wrote: »

If they didn't beat them, then they are not better.

Athletes A, B, C, D, and E are hoping to go to the Olympics.
A, B, and C run 2:18:40, 2:18:50, 2:18:55 in Dublin 2019. A and B are told they are going, and don't run a spring 2020 marathon.
Athlete D misses Dublin completely.
Athlete E has a nightmare in Dublin, runs 2.25.
D and E run Rotterdam in the spring, 2:11 and 2:12:15.

B has beaten E in a race, but E has run 6 minutes faster than B's PB.

morceli

RayCun wrote: »

Athletes A, B, C, D, and E are hoping to go to the Olympics.
A, B, and C run 2:18:40, 2:18:50, 2:18:55 in Dublin 2019. A and B are told they are going, and don't run a spring 2020 marathon.
Athlete D misses Dublin completely.
Athlete E has a nightmare in Dublin, runs 2.25.
D and E run Rotterdam in the spring, 2:11 and 2:12:15.

B has beaten E in a race, but E has run 6 minutes faster than B's PB.

Depends what you have set you standard on, in my view 2:18 is outside the standard so D and E go to the Olympic as you need the standard. If A, B run the standard in the window then they go. Our standard need to start to move down as standard improves.
Would love to have D, and E running this year, by the way with those times

Chivito550

morceli wrote: »

Depends what you have set you standard on, in my view 2:18 is outside the standard so D and E go to the Olympic as you need the standard. If A, B run the standard in the window then they go. Our standard need to start to move down as standard improves.
Would love to have D, and E running this your by the way with those times

Haha yeh. We haven't had a D or E since Mark Carroll.

average_runner

RayCun wrote: »

Suppose Fionnuala McCormack is injured in early 2019. She doesn't have a Q time in the first period, and doesn't have the time before a Dublin marathon run off.

That's life, the same thing can happen in the track and field trials for most countries

You can find a flaw in everything, but lets make it simple, give them plenty of time to recover from their qualifying effort and ensure they have the best chance to run a good time in the olympics.

Plodman

http://bbc.in/1rateOZ

Hoping his HM is enough. Have to feel for him

rom

Plodman wrote: »

http://bbc.in/1rateOZ

Hoping his HM is enough. Have to feel for him

Don't think it would be fair on the others if he is picked on half time. He needed to run London to be considered even if he most likely to do well due to past performances.

Duanington

I see Maria Mc ran the Wexford half yesterday - another shot at the standard on the way over the coming weeks?

KielyUnusual

I think, without doubt Pollock has to be selected. Proven championship performer from the world championships (full) and the half championship more recently. He is the only with potential to have actual impact in the race and it would be a shame not to send him just on spec alone. PS I also think Mick should be selecetes based on his performances in national races over the last few years. Again, a proven championship performer and just an all round stalwart of Irish athletics for a few years now.

demfad

Duanington wrote: »

I see Maria Mc ran the Wexford half yesterday - another shot at the standard on the way over the coming weeks?

Well spotted. Could be. I just looked at her splits from Milan: Last 21k was 4:10 pace so she pulled the plug fairy early possibly to give herself another chance.

El Caballo

KielyUnusual wrote: »

I think, without doubt Pollock has to be selected. Proven championship performer from the world championships (full) and the half championship more recently. He is the only with potential to have actual impact in the race and it would be a shame not to send him just on spec alone. PS I also think Mick should be selecetes based on his performances in national races over the last few years. Again, a proven championship performer and just an all round stalwart of Irish athletics for a few years now.

The thing is though that he has had nearly a year and a half to run faster and hasn't done it, he was beaten in Berlin in a straight-up race between the 4 main contenders and I know he had an injury there but they are the breaks in distance running and durability is as much a part of potential as what you're legs, lungs and heart can do and with more interruptions to training now with the stress reaction means he still has most of the load of specific training done for London while someone like Sergiu has had a lighter load and long-term buildup and also has major championship experience(albeit, struggled in the heat) and is a constant figure at national championships and is the most experienced marathon racer of them all. He also beat Clohissey in Berlin in a priority 1 window so for me, I think he should be guaranteed a spot ahead of Clohissey and Pollock. Call it controversial but I think Pollock should be the one to miss out, maybe his potential is the highest of all but he's also showed an inability to get to the start line fresh in both his marathons in the Rio window.