National Championships 2012

[awaldram]

Originally Posted by Linny

I think it would be really wrong for the CAS to interfere with any Nation's selection policy that has been approved and applied properly to make selections, after the event.

Making the time has never guaranteed anyone a place or Mark Foster would have swum when he made the time.

If the CAS can over-rule a selection policy to allow someone to compete because they have met FINA conditions but not their country's, chaos would surely ensue with people challenging the right of country's to select at trials rather than fastest qualifiers at any qualifying competition and all sorts.

Sorry, just saying.

Not sure this is any different to BS altering their Nationals selection policy to allow targeted swimmer to enter targeted events.

Actually given the Policy is obviously flawed and unfair being over-ruled is the only solution.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Linny

I think it would be really wrong for the CAS to interfere with any Nation's selection policy that has been approved and applied properly to make selections, after the event.

Making the time has never guaranteed anyone a place or Mark Foster would have swum when he made the time.

If the CAS can over-rule a selection policy to allow someone to compete because they have met FINA conditions but not their country's, chaos would surely ensue with people challenging the right of country's to select at trials rather than fastest qualifiers at any qualifying competition and all sorts.

Sorry, just saying.

Firstly I don't think this is at CAS just yet - I think its still with the BS appeals panel.

Secondly, the whole point with Fos in 2004 was that he didn't make the selection time.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by Steve

Firstly I don't think this is at CAS just yet - I think its still with the BS appeals panel.

And that is where it should stop is all I was saying.

Originally Posted by Steve

Secondly, the whole point with Fos in 2004 was that he didn't make the selection time.

And with the greatest of respect and indeed sympathy for her, neither has Molly Renshaw. At the trials she didn't swim the qualifying time for someone who finished second and then at the ASA Championships she didn't swim the time that was required to qualify then - the FINA A time.

Had Molly Renshaw qualified to swim another event or been approved to be a part of the team as a relay spare then for sure she would be swimming the 200 breaststroke, but according to the conditions that British Swimming created and the BOA presumably approved, the fact that she had swum the FINA A time at a meet other than the meet that she was required to swim it at is irrelevant and I don't think she has any grounds for appeal personally.

That's not to say she can't win it; I would be delighted for her if she did and delighted for the public who will get to see the biggest team we can have (which is what we should be having I think), but I would be really disappointed by British Swimming. It isn't a question of saving face it is about being fair and doing right by everyone. Being fair in my eyes is letting people know what they have to do and then giving them the opportunity to do it;it isn't about changing your mind after the event because you don't get the result that you wanted or expected or someone misses out who you think deserves to be in but you excluded them.

[saturdaynighter]

Originally Posted by linny

and that is where it should stop is all i was saying.and with the greatest of respect and indeed sympathy for her, neither has molly renshaw. At the trials she didn't swim the qualifying time for someone who finished second and then at the asa championships she didn't swim the time that was required to qualify then - the fina a time.

Had molly renshaw qualified to swim another event or been approved to be a part of the team as a relay spare then for sure she would be swimming the 200 breaststroke, but according to the conditions that british swimming created and the boa presumably approved, the fact that she had swum the fina a time at a meet other than the meet that she was required to swim it at is irrelevant and i don't think she has any grounds for appeal personally.

That's not to say she can't win it; i would be delighted for her if she did and delighted for the public who will get to see the biggest team we can have (which is what we should be having i think), but i would be really disappointed by british swimming. It isn't a question of saving face it is about being fair and doing right by everyone. Being fair in my eyes is letting people know what they have to do and then giving them the opportunity to do it;it isn't about changing your mind after the event because you don't get the result that you wanted or expected or someone misses out who you think deserves to be in but you excluded them.

linny, what a very balanced and sound analysis/commentary

[Shezzaxx]

Originally Posted by Linny

And that is where it should stop is all I was saying.And with the greatest of respect and indeed sympathy for her, neither has Molly Renshaw. At the trials she didn't swim the qualifying time for someone who finished second and then at the ASA Championships she didn't swim the time that was required to qualify then - the FINA A time.

Had Molly Renshaw qualified to swim another event or been approved to be a part of the team as a relay spare then for sure she would be swimming the 200 breaststroke, but according to the conditions that British Swimming created and the BOA presumably approved, the fact that she had swum the FINA A time at a meet other than the meet that she was required to swim it at is irrelevant and I don't think she has any grounds for appeal personally.

That's not to say she can't win it; I would be delighted for her if she did and delighted for the public who will get to see the biggest team we can have (which is what we should be having I think), but I would be really disappointed by British Swimming. It isn't a question of saving face it is about being fair and doing right by everyone. Being fair in my eyes is letting people know what they have to do and then giving them the opportunity to do it;it isn't about changing your mind after the event because you don't get the result that you wanted or expected or someone misses out who you think deserves to be in but you excluded them.

Linny, I agree with all your comments (apart from the being disappointed by British Swimming comment) but........I am sure that the British Swimming Policy that was ratified by the BOA did not intend to result in omitting a swimmer who is ranked world Top 17 (2 per nation), achieved the FINA A time in one of the Trials events, would stand a decent chance in making a semi-final in a home Olympics and her absence would leave only one other swimmer representing the country in that event.

BS has done nothing wrong in not selecting her as they are compelled to follow the agreed policy but I do still hope that her appeal is successful. I also hope that, secretly, BS hope that her appeal is successful. The selection policy was, in hindsight and inadvertantly, flawed and I just hope that Molly does not end up missing a once in a lifetime opportunity just because the consequences of the stated policy had not been thoroughly "stress tested".

If I were in her parents position I would be absolutely gutted if she didn't make it and, like them, exhaust every last chance to reverse the decision.

[BIGBrian]

Originally Posted by Shezzaxx

Linny, I agree with all your comments (apart from the being disappointed by British Swimming comment) but........I am sure that the British Swimming Policy that was ratified by the BOA did not intend to result in omitting a swimmer who is ranked world Top 17 (2 per nation), achieved the FINA A time in one of the Trials events, would stand a decent chance in making a semi-final in a home Olympics and her absence would leave only one other swimmer representing the country in that event.

BS has done nothing wrong in not selecting her as they are compelled to follow the agreed policy but I do still hope that her appeal is successful. I also hope that, secretly, BS hope that her appeal is successful. The selection policy was, in hindsight and inadvertantly, flawed and I just hope that Molly does not end up missing a once in a lifetime opportunity just because the consequences of the stated policy had not been thoroughly "stress tested".

If I were in her parents position I would be absolutely gutted if she didn't make it and, like them, exhaust every last chance to reverse the decision.

Exactly. Just because you can't criticise BS for how they've implemented their selection policy doesn't mean they should be immune for criticism for the selection policy itself. After all, they chose it. The BOA would have ratified whatever policy they chose anyway. It's not the BOA's job to pick the team

I'm struggling to see who would be disadvantaged if Renshaw were selected. It's not as if she'd be taking someone else's place.

Every event should have the fastest two swimmers in it. Why is that so hard to build a selection policy around?

[SwimMumx2]

Originally Posted by selkie

For the top 16 world times, does British swimming at least adjust based on 'two per country' rules? Because some events get freaky clusters fo same nationality- Japan had 5 of the top 17 girls in the 200 breast last year; Americans had 4 of the top 15 last year in the men's 200 free. Not really fair to the athletes who turn in a time that could actually get them a semifinal swim because of exclusions kicking in but who get left off the team. (I'm of the opinion if you've got a shot at an evening swim, you deserve selection) Eyeballing the current 2012 rankings, I've got Molly Renshaw as a #17 Olympic seed once you again exclude a glut of Japanese girls and others #3 or lower for their country.

Best swim of the first prelims session so far has to be Dana Vollmer. Be nice if she was able to get the time she's chasing here, so it's only a race for place in London for her.

Hmmn. Just coming to this thread, and this gave me food for thought. I wonder...

[Steve]

Originally Posted by SwimMumx2

Hmmn. Just coming to this thread, and this gave me food for thought. I wonder...

Don't get carried away with the 2 per nation thing, the policy says

1.4.2 The 2nd place in each individual event will be filled by the 2nd fastest "available‟ swimmer in the final of that event on condition that they have achieved the World LC ranked Top 16 (2 per nation) time as set out in Table 1 in the "Trials‟ final of the said event. Such a nomination will be subject to clause 3.2.

Of course if something else Selkie has said gave you food for thought, then please carry on!

[SwimMumx2]

Originally Posted by Steve

Don't get carried away with the 2 per nation thing, the policy says



Of course if something else Selkie has said gave you food for thought, then please carry on!

Thanks Steve. It was the 2 per nation comment - I was too lazy to go looking myself. Thank you

[selkie]

Any time I try to find something on the British swimming web site, I end up getting hopelessly lost. So I've given up really ever looking at it.


Nice swim yesterday for Breeja Larson- 1:05 100 breast, and she never swam year round until she went to university. Trials was the first time she'd ever tapered for a long course meet.

Too bad you can't trade swimmers from place to place like you can footballers. Would swap y'all Tyler Clary for a female 200 butterflyer to be named later, and both sides would probably be happy with the results.

[Apostle]

Originally Posted by selkie

Any time I try to find something on the British swimming web site, I end up getting hopelessly lost. So I've given up really ever looking at it.


Nice swim yesterday for Breeja Larson- 1:05 100 breast, and she never swam year round until she went to university. Trials was the first time she'd ever tapered for a long course meet.

Too bad you can't trade swimmers from place to place like you can footballers. Would swap y'all Tyler Clary for a female 200 butterflyer to be named later, and both sides would probably be happy with the results.

Think about that for a moment. The third best 400IM er in the world and he can't go to the Olympics.

Crazy.

[selkie]

Same thing happened to Eric Shanteau in 2004 in the 200 IM. It's why he ended up focusing on breaststroke instead- easier to try to pick up the second spot there behind than Brendan Hansen than to turn in a #3 world time at Trials in the IM and hope one of the guys ahead of him DQed.

[Noswimdad]

any news on the Molly Renshaw appeal?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Noswimdad

any news on the Molly Renshaw appeal?

It's today. I've not seen/heard anything as yet.

[awaldram]

Originally Posted by Steve

It's today. I've not seen/heard anything as yet.

Heres hoping their make the right decision rather than the path of least resistance.

Can't be easy for the Derbyshire Tyke especially with Europeans.