Goals have been clearly set for some time so those who qualify to the standards we’ve set will know they’re capable of returning from Athens having achieved something – they’re not simply going to the Olympic Games as excess baggage.
This is a quote from a very Henryk Lakomy, Sports science & fitness director at British Swimming.
So they feel that Mark Foster is excess baggage ! :mad:
He could win a medal, but i guess we will never know and that is one less medal for Britain. Ah well, there is always the breaststroke. Which seems to be the only stroke that UK swimmers can do well !:mad:
Parents
Former Member
Aquageek is right, there is no deserving, and the IOC allows its member countries to decide who to send any way they want.
So it seems to me is that the best way is to decide in the interests of the individual country. So the process should start by the careful selection of the committee or individual that decides this - they should be particularly sensitive to perception and political realities. The best way to assure this is for the selectors to be chosen by the political leaders.
Primary attention should be paid to the perception of the athletes by foreign countries, and how well they represent the best ideals of their own nation. For example, if they don't have a good chance of winning the athletes should probably not go, as it would be embarrassing to have a low percentage of medals, and it does cost money to send these athletes.
Most countries want others to believe that its citizens are hard working and obedient to authority, so if the athlete is lazy, argues with his coach, or does not take national meets seriously, he/she should probably not go, either.
We all want our athletes to be moral, because our country is moral, so it is important that the athletes represent the highest standards of society. Single female athletes, for example, should not have been pregnant in the past, or play cards with men late at night.
If the athlete does not truly represent the nation, why should he or she attend? For example, some athletes may come from marginal groups that are causing domestic problems (or don't look like we want to look like,) so probably should not go because their attendence could cause issues.
Related to that last issue, sometimes athletes are not properly patriotic. They sometimes would be tempted to not return; that would look very bad, so it is better if they never left.
Given the political realities, it is often better to select famous athletes, or well-connected athletes, as being better for the nation's general athletic program. For example, if a well-respected athlete's attendence encourages more participation in the sport, that can only be good, right?
So I think it is clear that 'trials' are far to risky. Sometimes the best athletes or individuals are not selected. Even worse, sometimes inappropriate athletes are selected.
Reply
Former Member
Aquageek is right, there is no deserving, and the IOC allows its member countries to decide who to send any way they want.
So it seems to me is that the best way is to decide in the interests of the individual country. So the process should start by the careful selection of the committee or individual that decides this - they should be particularly sensitive to perception and political realities. The best way to assure this is for the selectors to be chosen by the political leaders.
Primary attention should be paid to the perception of the athletes by foreign countries, and how well they represent the best ideals of their own nation. For example, if they don't have a good chance of winning the athletes should probably not go, as it would be embarrassing to have a low percentage of medals, and it does cost money to send these athletes.
Most countries want others to believe that its citizens are hard working and obedient to authority, so if the athlete is lazy, argues with his coach, or does not take national meets seriously, he/she should probably not go, either.
We all want our athletes to be moral, because our country is moral, so it is important that the athletes represent the highest standards of society. Single female athletes, for example, should not have been pregnant in the past, or play cards with men late at night.
If the athlete does not truly represent the nation, why should he or she attend? For example, some athletes may come from marginal groups that are causing domestic problems (or don't look like we want to look like,) so probably should not go because their attendence could cause issues.
Related to that last issue, sometimes athletes are not properly patriotic. They sometimes would be tempted to not return; that would look very bad, so it is better if they never left.
Given the political realities, it is often better to select famous athletes, or well-connected athletes, as being better for the nation's general athletic program. For example, if a well-respected athlete's attendence encourages more participation in the sport, that can only be good, right?
So I think it is clear that 'trials' are far to risky. Sometimes the best athletes or individuals are not selected. Even worse, sometimes inappropriate athletes are selected.
