Dazed
October 8, 2010, 5:55am
21
I understand that JS had to run at the selection trials as this was a pre-condition for selection. He had back surgery 13 wks prior to the Nationals and therefore had sufficient medical reasons for not racing. AA was negligent & arrogant in stipulating that JS had to race or he could miss selection. Now Sally didn’t compete at the selection trials and at the eleventh hour is given the nod by AA. How is this fair or consistent? This decision can only be viewed as massive favouritism and discrimination by AA.
This decision extends to other athletes. Why wasn’t PJ selected for an individual 100m or 200m spot? He had an A qualifier in the 100 & B qualifier in 200 ( 1st at Nationals). AA has agreed that PJ at 37 PJ is too old and he would need to meet the strict criteria to achieve selection in the individual event. He would need to win the nationals in the A qualifying standard. PJ is being discriminating because of his age.
AA has used the strict selection criteria for both PJ and JS. However when it comes it the golden girl Sally, no need to race at nationals (100m), no need to achieve the A standard (100m).
I put aside personal relationship in this matter and I am just an objective observer in all of this. I am perplexed by the unjust, unfair, discriminatory application of the selection policy by AA.
I can’t comment on PJs situation, but John wasn’t required to run at nationals. He was told that they couldn’t hold a spot open for him so if there were three qualifiers he would not get an individual spot.