PoleVaultPower.com

Does anyone think that the U.S. trials system could stand to be changed? I know one suggestion is that the first two finishers would automatically earn an Olympic berth while the third spot would be determined by a U.S. track and field panel. Now believe me, this is no criticism of any vaulters we have every sent to the games, but I have read about how it is unfair to some higher level elite athletes who try to train through the games and be at their best for the Olympics but then get beat by another (and often lesser) athlete who specifically peaks for the trials and then does not perform well in the Olympics. This complaint is most often associated with distance running, examples including Khadevis Robinson and Alan Webb this year. Perhaps we could get some thoughts from elite coaches familiar with the subject?

I personally think it would be good to leave the third spot open for a review, as long as it is determined by an unbiased panel using specific criteria (i.e. international experience, PR's, SB's, etc.).

It is impossible to have an unbiased panel.

I think the system works just fine. Politics within USATF are a tremendous force, trust me when I say that you do NOT want it left up to someone to decide.

A good example is Tyson Gay in the 200. Any panel would have picked him to run it in Beijing. Would that have been a good idea?

How about an earlier date?? This would give more time to work on relays and to re-peak... And possibly recover from injuries.

I see your point about the impossibility of removing politics from the process, and I do think what we have is a good system, but also one that does not always send the best three people.

I've recently been reading discussions about how to determine the greatest athletes in each respective event. Several people have come up with objective formulas by using factors such as personal best, seasonal best, number of world/olympic teams made and world/olympic medals. But then again that might take away the opportunity for a younger athlete (such as someone coming out of the NCAA) to make the team if he or she claimed third.

I guess because we're so stacked in every event that's just the way it has to be

Also, in response to the above poster, weren't the olympics held in the fall at one point?

ACvault wrote:I see your point about the impossibility of removing politics from the process, and I do think what we have is a good system, but also one that does not always send the best three people.

There is no way to completely accurately predict who will step up and perform the best at the Olympics. The Trials does its best to simulate the Games (similar schedule in terms of number of heats and rest in between). If you can perform well at the Trials, you have performed under as close of situations as we can approximate to the actual meet. If you can't perform there, why should you get to go to the Olympics?

ACvault wrote:Also, in response to the above poster, weren't the olympics held in the fall at one point?

The Sydney games in 2000 were held from September 15th to October 1st - i.e. fall in the northern hemisphere, but spring in the southern. I imagine that if Rio de Janeiro's 2016 bid wins, their schedule will be similar. I assume the US Trials in 2000 were pushed back similarly, but I'm too lazy to look up the dates right now.

BruceFlorman wrote:

ACvault wrote:Also, in response to the above poster, weren't the olympics held in the fall at one point?

The Sydney games in 2000 were held from September 15th to October 1st - i.e. fall in the northern hemisphere, but spring in the southern. I imagine that if Rio de Janeiro's 2016 bid wins, their schedule will be similar. I assume the US Trials in 2000 were pushed back similarly, but I'm too lazy to look up the dates right now.

Olympic Games in Seoul '88 started on Sep 17, similar as Sidney. Seoul is not in south hemisphere, but probably local climate is the reason.

The trials do eliminate people that are not big meet performers which is not someone you want to be at a bigger stage in the Olympics

Leave the trials alone. They are just games, for crying out loud. Leaving it to bureaucracy would be un-American!

i read all the posts and i see that there a bunch of different methods that can be used but...as pole vaulters, can't we all agree that, even with the proper percautions and everything, that this event is still the most unpredictable sport in the world??

i don't know about other sports, but in pole vault, sometimes, s*** happens and you have to cope with it. there are so many more variables in this sport than others that it is practically impossible to eliminate them all. the peaking thing....well i still think walker should've peak for the olympics but, sometimes it just happens. i'm sure walker will come back for the 2012 games, in london and put his thang down hahaha

I'm not sure that countries that have a "review" based system are any happier with their outcome than those that have a "sudden death" system, and it certainly subjects both athletes and administrators to a lot more headache and heartache. (Texas based marathoner Liza Hunter-Galvan selection by Athletics New Zealand would be a good example of how convoluted this can be.)

Lack of bias and politicing doesn't seem likely, and true objectivity is difficult to the point of impossible. Though the "top three" approach is not without it's faults, it's not subject to second guessing either.

Now - if we could just figure out why athletes do badly when we expect them to do brilliantly, a lot of the issues would be overcome

Maybe this relates, maybe it doesn't. In Canada, they use a points system to select their Olympic gymnasts. For a poor performance at last year's worlds, they were allowed only 2 girls. One girl (Kristina Vaculik), was very young and had just became a senior in 2007 was cheated out of a spot because she hadn't had enough time to earn points. Even though most everyone agreed she was Canada's best athlete for the job, and was a national champion, she finished 3rd in the points and had her Beijing dreams dashed. I guess the point is that even a formula of some sort doesn't always work the way it was planned to.