This weekend marks the beginning of two of the most competitive athletic events anywhere in the world--the U.S. Olympic Team Trials in track & field and swimming. The United States is so deep in track & field and swimming, two of the Olympics' marquee sports, that simply making the team is an achievement in itself. There are only three berths available in each track & field event, and only two in swimming! In a number of events, potential Olympic medalists will be left home.
Part of the beauty of the Olympic Trials is that they're do-or-die. These athletes train four long, hard years for one opportunity to make the Olympic team. And you'd better bring your A-game to Trials. Otherwise, you might not even be an Olympian. Finish fourth at the Olympics, you just miss a medal. Finish fourth at the Olympic Trials, you're watching the Olympics at home. Four years comes down to a matter of minutes (or seconds) over a couple days. In a way, it seems somewhat cruel. But that's part of the beauty of it, too.
The U.S. is the only country in the world that picks its Olympic team based exclusively on the results at Trials. Other nations use various different critera, but each involves some sort of selective component. Take Olympic host Great Britain, for example. The British track trials are also this weekend. However, only the top two are guaranteed places in the Olympics. The third spot is at the discretion of a selection panel. Hannah England, who won the silver medal in the 1500 meters at last year's World Championships, is injured at won't compete at the British Trials. She'll likely still go to London, though. Although now she has to rely on the selection committee giving her a spot.
Then there are the countries that give the Olympic berths to the athletes with the best marks. While that might seem fair, what if somebody gets that time early in the season, then comes nowhere close to it again, while somebody else is consistently outperforming them heading into the Olympics? To me, this seems a little counterintuitve. Wouldn't you want to send the best team possible to the Olympics, even if it's not necessarily the athletes with the "best" marks? (Some smaller countries use this method, but, since they're not going to send full teams, it makes sense for them to send whoever qualifies.)
Even though it's often been criticized by outsiders, I prefer the U.S. selection method. It makes the most sense. Especially in a country that's so deep in so many events. If there were a selection committee, how could they justify taking somebody over somebody else with similar credentials? For example, four of the top shot putters in the world are American. They're all capable of winning gold in London. One can't go. How do you pick? Same thing in the women's 1500 meters. Five Americans have made the finals at the last two World Championships. At least two of them aren't going to London. The only fair way to decide who goes and who doesn't is to let them fight it out for the berths themselves.
It also gives the athletes a sense of urgency. They know the rules. They know they have to get the job done at Trials. Sure, it adjusts the training schedules of some of the top athletes, who have to peak for Trials, then peak again a month later at the Olympics, but that's a sacrifice they have to make in order to go to the Olympics. Olympic Trials are unlike the National Championships in the other three years because everybody's there and everybody's competing in their best events. It's the only way to make the Olympic team. You don't necessarily have that in other years, when the top athletes might be taking a year off, or trying out other events, or whatever.
Many people have said that the Olympic Trials are often more competitive than the Olympics. That's the reason why. America's best are often the world's best. Sure, the sprints at the Jamaican Olympic Trials are probably extremely exciting, but no other nation has so many top athletes that compete in the same event across the board. Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte compete in the same events. Natalie Coughlin and Missy Franklin have to cross paths at the Olympic Trials, too. I feel kind of sorry for the poor suckers in the races with them.
Every Olympic Trials gives us the case of the potential Olympic medalist not making the team for whatever reason. Take Dan O'Brien in 1992. Or Tyson Gay in 2008. We're bound to have that happen again this year. But the winner-take-all, one-shot element also makes the Olympic Trials great. Not only do athletes have to finish in the top three, they have to achieve the Olympic qualifying mark at the Trials if they don't already have it. That brings something different entirely to the Olympic Trials table. Four years ago, Amy Begley dove across the line at the finish of the women's 10,000 meters at Trials. She finished third, and got the standard.
Moments like that wouldn't be possible if the U.S. Olympic team was selected in any different way. And moments like that make the Olympic Trials great. The Olympics, obviously, are also great. But the U.S. Olympic Trials are a pretty tasty appetizer before we get to the main course next month.
No comments:
Post a Comment