Olympic Selection Drama

With the London Games now just three weeks away, nations are beginning to finalize their Olympic teams.  In most sports, athletes have known for weeks or even months whether or not they're going to London.  That's not the case in track & field, though.  With the qualifying period in track & field officially ending on Sunday, a majority of countries have been revealing their teams throughout the week.  And those selections have brought about a significant amount of controversy.

Let's start in South Africa and my "favorite" athlete--double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius.  The South African Olympic Committee had said all along that Pistorius had to run the Olympic "A" qualifying time of 45.30 seconds twice this year in order to run the 400 meters in London.  He didn't do it, but was still eligible to be selected for South Africa's 4x400 meter relay, which he was.  Then the South African Olympic Committee (seeing the PR potential) decided that since he was already going to London anyway, he'd be allowed to run in the individual 400 after all, contradicting their own policy.

Now I've made my feelings on Pistorius known in the past.  I don't think he should be competing against able-bodied athletes.  And his selection to the South African team (and, more significantly, their decision to let him run the open 400) will turn the competition into a sideshow, which isn't fair to the other athetes.  The Pistorius "story," which I've heard so many times by now it makes me sick, will completely overshadow everything else, and he's already on the short list of most recognizable names going to London.  The guy's an attention whore, nothing more.  And he shouldn't be eligible for both the Olympics and Paralympics.  (For the record, Pistorius has absolutely no chance of winning a medal in the individual 400.)

Next we'll visit our Olympic hosts from Great Britain.  The British have Olympic Trials, but, unlike the U.S., those trials aren't the sole selection criterion.  There's also a selection committee.  In the women's 800 meters, five British athletes have the Olympic "A" qualifying standard, meaning that three of them could be selected.  Included in that group is Jenny Meadows, who won the European Championship a couple weeks ago and won the bronze at the World Championships in 2009.  However, the selection committee didn't choose Meadows or any of the other athletes with an "A" standard.  Instead, they selected Lynsey Sharp, who only has the lesser "B" standard.  (In fairness, Sharp did win the British Olympic Trials 800.)  As a result, instead of entering the maximum three athletes in the event, Great Britain will only enter one (Olympic rules allow up to three "A" standards, but only one "B" in any event.)  Three of the other athletes with the "A" qualifier have appealed the decision, so we'll see what happens there.

In other news, we'll be deprived of the opportunity to watch Russia's Darya Klishina in the women's long jump.  But her omission is much less controversial.  Russia is incredibly deep in that event, and Klishina was only fifth at the Russian Trials.  She didn't get it done when she needed to.  If she had, Klishina would be going to London and the world would be a better place.

Heading North of the Border, the Canadian Trials concluded last weekend.  The big controversy there came in the women's 100 meter hurdles, where Priscilla Lopes-Schliep, the silver medalist in Beijing, didn't make the team.  The Canadian Trials are like the U.S. Trials in that only the top three make the team.  However, the fact that Lopes-Schliep, Canada's only track & field medalist four years ago and perceived best hope for one in London, finished fifth in that race is causing a significant amount of controversy.  Some are arguing that, in light of Lopes-Schliep not qualifying for the Olympics, Canada should have a selection committee.  (It should be noted here that the 100 meter hurdles is Canada's best event and two "A" qualifiers were being kept home regardless.  Canada is sending a complete team in the event.)

With all that being said, I reiterate my stance that the U.S. Olympic Trials is the best system.  If you're not in the top three, you don't go to the Olympics.  It's straight forward.  The U.S. Olympic Trials aren't without controversy (see: women's 100 meters), but the selection method is as fair as it can get (unforseen tiebreakers notwithstanding).  If you don't make the team, you don't have anybody to blame but yourself.

Furthermore, a selection committee wouldn't work in the U.S.  The American team is so deep in every event (in the 43 individual events, the U.S. has entered 118 athletes, eight shy of the maximum) that a selection committee would create problems, not solve them.  You can't aribtrarily award Olympic spots when there are so many deserving athletes who've earned the right to compete for them.  If the goal is for a country to send its best possible national team to the Olympics, let the athletes prove they belong.  Don't leave it up to a selection committee.