It's Not Better

Every Olympic year, when someone doesn't make the team at the Track & Field Trials, the critics come out, taking issue with the cutthroat selection method where the top three make the team and that's it (that's not always the case, but for the sake of this discussion, let's say it is).  Either perform on the day or you don't make the team.  It's unambiguous and straightforward.  There's no controversy surrounding the selections.  

That hasn't stopped those critics from calling the system "unfair" to potential Olympic medalists who end up getting left home.  Of course, I'd counter that argument with the fact that that's the entire point!  Everyone has an equal chance of making the team.  Letting the athletes decide the team themselves is actually the fairest method possible, especially since there are so many events where the U.S. has more than three athletes with the Olympic standard, making it impossible to choose otherwise.

While a vast majority of people agree that the selection process at the U.S. Olympic Track & Field Trials works perfectly and doesn't need to be changed, there will always be those calls to tweak the system.  The most common preference I've seen among those who favor a change would be doing something similar to what they do in Great Britain.  The top two finishers at the British Trials automatically make the team, while the third spot is decided by a selection committee.  A system that is ripe for controversy!

This year's British Olympic track & field team selection is all the proof you need that their system is, in fact, not better.  Because there were plenty of questionable choices (and non-choices) by the selection committee.  That ambiguity does not exist at the U.S. Trials, where the subjectivity is taken out of it.

The British team was announced last week, and UK Athletics has been under fire pretty much ever since.  The athletes themselves have been among the most vocal is their displeasure with how everything went down.  Actually, "disgust" is probably more appropriate than "displeasure."  Some of those athletes who've been screwed over have opted to retire rather than represent Great Britian, while others have encouraged those athletes who can to switch their allegiance to another country.  Still others have said they're "ashamed" to represent British Athletics after this fiasco.

Countries are limited to three entrants per event in Olympic track & field, provided they meet the qualifying criteria.  World Athletics has a target number of athletes for each event.  Roughly half the field is made up of those with the Olympic qualifying standard (which grants an athlete automatic entry as long as they're selected by their nation), with the rest of the field filled based on the world rankings.  The qualification period ended on June 30 (which was the last day of the U.S. Olympic Trials), after which nations and athletes knew whose world rankings were high enough to earn an Olympic place.

World Athletics purposely made the Olympic standard tougher for the Paris Games than it did for Tokyo because they didn't want the whole field to only be athletes with the standard.  They wanted the world rankings to come into play.  UK Athletics, however, had its own standard for making the Olympics, which, for some reason, was actually harder than the one set by World Athletics.  As a result, some British athletes who had the Olympic standard were left off the team because they didn't meet the arbitrary harder British standard.

It's worth noting here that we aren't talking about events where more than three Brits had the World Athletics standard, either.  Discus thrower Jade Lally would be in based on her world ranking, but isn't going to Paris because she didn't meet the British selection criteria.  Instead, Great Britain won't be entering anybody in the event.  Same thing in the men's steeplechase, where both Phil Norman and Zak Seddon would've made it, yet neither was chosen (for the same reason as Lally, because they didn't meet the standard set by UK Athletics).

They did it the other way, too.  Jake Wightman, the 2022 World champion in the men's 1500 meters, withdrew from the British Trials with an injury.  That didn't stop them from naming him to the team in the 800 (at the expense of third-place finisher Elliot Giles).  Even Wightman described the selection as throwing him a "lifeline."  

UK Athletics has been on the defensive since the team for Paris was announced, and UK Athletics Chair Ian Beattie published an article where he tried to justify the federation's reasoning.  His explanation, frankly, rings hollow.  The argument he made was essentially, these athletes have little to no chance at making the final in their event, so why bother?  He talked about "inspiring the nation" and said those athletes wouldn't do that.  He also claims that a larger team can "dilute the level of support given to our genuine medal contenders" and that it could have a demotivational effect.  Maybe he can explain to me how someone not making the women's discus final has any impact on the men's 1500-meter runners.  Because I don't get that thought process at all!

Great Britain only wants athletes who are capable of making the final and placing in the top eight.  This isn't me saying this.  Beattie point blank said it in his attempt to justify their position.  If they don't feel an athlete can make the top eight, they didn't select them for the team.  

On some level, you have to applaud them for wanting to send the best, most competitive team possible.  But their selection process is highly questionable.  These athletes are otherwise qualified according to the sport's international federation, only for their own national federation to say that isn't good enough.  That line of thinking is completely backwards!  You should want to send the largest team possible to a global championship.  At the very least, you shouldn't be intentionally making your team smaller by leaving qualified athletes home.

Those athletes who weren't chosen because of the UK Athletics criteria are understandably (and justifiably) angry about it.  Norman, who was just 0.15 seconds off the UK Athletics standard, called them out for essentially saying he's "not good enough."  Lally, meanwhile, had the best mark by a British women's discus thrower in 40 years, but fell 5 centimeters short of the country's standard, so she got left home, too, a decision that she described as "killing" the sport.

Some people would still probably argue that they prefer the British system.  If you were to ask the Brits, though, they'd most likely say that they like the American way better.  It's not arbitrary and it takes the politics out of it.  Most importantly, there's no controversy around it.  No one has to answer questions why certain athletes made it while others didn't or justify the process.  You either make the team or you don't.  It's plain and simple.  And it's all up to you.