This entry is now closed for comments.
To leave places vacant is a crime. There is major inconsistency in the way athletes have been chosen. For every reason why particular athletes have not been chosen you can fine an athlete in the team who has been chosen - whether that is not meeting the A standard this summer, not meeting the A standard twice, not meeting the A standard at all etc. Be fair to alll athletes Choose them all
The B.O.A have been disappointing and should have been more proactive in the decisions particularly when they had the chance in the Aaron Cook debacle. The selection panels (no matter what the sport) are clearly not fit for purpose and should not be allowed on any panel for 2016
It looks like the larger portion of folks who really follow Athletics are behind Sharp's selection – the counter argument is rooted in a quota mentality in a vacuum. She's running into serious form and just looks an all-over stronger athlete. On the other hand, Kilty's omission seems highly unfair – unless there's more to his below-par show of form than the virus he said he had at the trials.
For many of these athletes simply going to the Olympics would be the pinnacle of their career. They can have no illusions about making finals, or picking up medals. Not taking Kilty stinks of personal prejudice of the selectors. The selection panel should be ashamed of themselves for depriving any eligible athlete of their Olympic dream.
Understand the decision over the 800m - I think its correct considering Lynsey Sharps form right now and she is continuing to improve.Congrats to Warburton.The Kilty decision baffles me most - he has the two A standards required, there are three places available so why not send him? Big events, encourage big performances and I believe he would have risen to the occasion.
@31I understand the selectors criteria.We have a quota for each event and I think we should fill that quota with our best available athletes. I agree with the other parts of the selection criteria.
piers - UK Athletics set a window for A standard from 1/4 this year - the actual IAAF standards can be set from 1/5/11. So the selctors had the option to select some atheletes (such as Dwain) who has the qualifying standard from last year.
33. Chambers ran a couple of A standards last year which can be taken into account for selection purposes.I get the Women's 800m. They had to choose between an in form athlete with only the B standard OR out of form athletes with the A standard. They couldn't mix & match.I don't understand the Men's 200m though. There was an athlete they could pick but didn't. Why?
Qualifying criteria: Athletes with just a 'B' standard could be picked only if no 'A' standard competitors were selected for that discipline.Why when Dwain Chambers only has the 'B' standard are GB Athletics selecting two others 100m runners with 'A' standards. I thought that is they select Dwain they cannot select 'A' standard runners. Am I missing something?
Can see the reasoning for 800m, Lynsey Sharp is a young athlete improving all the time (and the summer has not been ideal for fast times so far) whereas the A standard atheletes are either injured or off form.The mens 200m puzzles me - why not take Kilty? He has made the A standard so at a home Olympics it is cruel to deny him and take no one in his place
@ 30 - its not 3 for each event, its a maximum of 3 with the 'A' standard or 1 person with the 'B' standard. The only place where GB have not taken all available athletes is the w800m and the m200m and the 800m decision whilst difficult for some to understand I believe is the right one to take an athlete who is showing exception form over those who achieved some months ago.
We're having some problems displaying the comments at the moment. Sorry. We're doing our best to fix it.
You must sign in to rate comments