Modified Track Selection Criteria - posted

www.fixedgearfever.com

Has links to USAC.

Scott
--
-*- Scott Patton -*- Colorado Springs, CO -*- http://www.FixedGearFever.com -*- Track Racing
Web Services

 

"scott patton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> www.fixedgearfever.com
>
> Has links to USAC.

IOW, if you're racing the match sprint, kilo, keirin, or Olympic sprint, or if you're a woman,
you're still screwed.

Andy Coggan

 

>IOW, if you're racing the match sprint, kilo, keirin, or Olympic sprint, or if you're a woman,
>you're still screwed.
>
>Andy Coggan
>
>
>

This is true. I think it might have only been altered for Men's Track Endurance because we were
the only ones EXTREMELY objecting. I tried to make everyone as aware of this unfair selection as
possible. It will be interesting if more issues are brought up regarding the women and other
events now.

JC

 

In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"scott patton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> www.fixedgearfever.com
>>
>> Has links to USAC.
>
>IOW, if you're racing the match sprint, kilo, keirin, or Olympic sprint, or if you're a woman,
>you're still screwed.

That is certainly one way to look at it. However, there were no sprinters (men or women), keirin
racers (men or women), Team Sprinters (Men or women) or ... Elite women on the call. They seemed
content with the process.

Also, nobody is screwed yet, just "potentially screwed".

Finally, far more elite sprinters have been attending the qualifiers and going to the world cup.
They have a program and a coach. They also get plane tickets.

Scott

--
-*- Scott Patton -*- Colorado Springs, CO -*- http://www.FixedGearFever.com -*- Track Racing
Web Services

 

"J DASH ME" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >IOW, if you're racing the match sprint, kilo, keirin, or Olympic sprint,
or
> >if you're a woman, you're still screwed.
> >
> >Andy Coggan
> >
>
> This is true. I think it might have only been altered for Men's Track Endurance because we were
> the only ones EXTREMELY objecting. I tried to
make
> everyone as aware of this unfair selection as possible. It will be
interesting
> if more issues are brought up regarding the women and other events now.

Perhaps. I think the rule changes are good in the long run, but I thought the timing of the
announcement and its retroactivity was a huge mistake. Whether it affects the women's side or the
short races is an empirical question, and maybe those folks figured that whoever was going to
qualify was going to qualify anyway, so the change would be moot. Shrug.

I think the decision shows that squeaky wheels get grease. It's vaguely surprising that USAC changed
its stance at all--Johnson's position in cyclingnews.com seemed pretty ossified. The modification
makes me think of Solomon splitting the baby, but it still allows USAC to save a bit of face. We
have plenty of examples in Real Life at the moment where the spin on the result appears more
important than the result itself.

 

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Whether it affects the women's side or the short races is an empirical question, and maybe those
> folks figured that whoever was going to qualify was going to qualify anyway, so the change would
> be moot.

Well said.

> I think the decision shows that squeaky wheels get grease.

And there's the rub. Don't get me wrong, I think Jame did the right thing in pressing the issue, and
it is good that at least the criteria for the men's endurance side of things were modified to make
things more fair. But the bigger issue is that, rightly or wrongly, a widespread perception exists
that favoritism plays a HUGE role in how USAC decides who gets selected for international
competition, or even for national team support (i.e., $$). You only have to read David Weller's
letter at www.fixedgearfever.com to see the negative impact this has on track cycling. So when
called on the carpet, what does USAC do? They compound the issue by responding only to those who had
the guts to stand up and fight, leaving everyone else out in the cold! That's got to be one of the
stupidest PR moves I've ever seen.

What's interesting is that although the Pan-Am team selection criteria are similar (perhaps even
identical - I didn't compare the documents point-by-point) to the World's team selection criteria,
USAC didn't attempt to make them retroactive as they did with the World's criteria. Why not?
Undoubtly because they knew if they had done so, they would have had the USOC Ombudsman breathing
down their necks, and possibly a lawsuit or two on their hands. Too bad athletes don't access to
similar recourse when it comes to non-IOC events.

Andy Coggan

 

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Whether it affects the women's side or the short races is an empirical question, and maybe those
> > folks figured that whoever was going to
qualify
> > was going to qualify anyway, so the change would be moot.
>
> Well said.

Actually, there was something there that I thought you'd point out: Tanya Lindenmuth qualified based
on the World Cup race in Mexico (which occurred after March 17, when the first plan was announced).
If they'd turned the clock back, she'd have had just as much to complain about.

> > I think the decision shows that squeaky wheels get grease.
>
> And there's the rub. Don't get me wrong, I think Jame did the right thing
in
> pressing the issue

I think he did the right thing, too. But to be frank, my a priori expectations were that this
squeaky wheel wasn't going to get greased, so I was sorta surprised that there was any
movement at all.

> But the bigger issue is that, rightly or wrongly, a widespread perception exists that favoritism
> plays a HUGE role in how USAC decides who gets selected for international competition

I think we saw an example of this last year in women's pursuit.

 

Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But the bigger issue is that, rightly or wrongly, a widespread perception exists that favoritism
>> plays a HUGE role in how USAC decides who gets selected for international competition

> I think we saw an example of this last year in women's pursuit.

Robert, you're putting me in the uncomfortable position of defending USAC.

I presume you're referring to the selection of Conzelman over Vargas for worlds. I may be off base
but one of the things the USOC requires before they will pay for travel is evidence of medal
contention, either through performance or by making a time standard. Conzelman had done this by
taking 4th in both the pursuit and the 500 at the China world cup. That probably counted for more
than a narrow win for Vargas over Conzelman at nationals after Vargas had posted a slower
qualifying time.

There may be more than meets the eye here but I wouldn't assume there was from that. If Angie never
gets a crack at a world cup, then I think you have a stronger case.

Bob Schwartz [email protected]

 

"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> But the bigger issue is that, rightly or wrongly, a widespread
perception
> >> exists that favoritism plays a HUGE role in how USAC decides who gets selected for
> >> international competition
>
> > I think we saw an example of this last year in women's pursuit.
>
> Robert, you're putting me in the uncomfortable position of defending USAC.
>
> I presume you're referring to the selection of Conzelman over Vargas for worlds. I may be off base
> but one of the things the USOC requires before they will pay for travel is evidence of medal
> contention, either through performance or by making a time standard. Conzelman had done this by
> taking 4th in both the pursuit and the 500 at the China world cup. That probably counted for more
> than a narrow win for Vargas over Conzelman at nationals after Vargas had posted a slower
> qualifying time.

You better check your history books, Bob - it was the 3rd place finisher at nationals (i.e.,
Mirabella) who was chosen to ride the pursuit at worlds, not Conzelman.

As for it being a "narrow win", here are the results round-by-round:

Qualifying:

1. Conzelman 3:53.079
2. Vargas 3:53.460
3. Mirabella 3:56.337
4. Kimmet 3:56.453

Semi-finals:

5. Conzelman 3:55.610
6. Kimmet 3:58.447

7. Vargas 3:51.762
8. Mirabella 3:54.311

Finals

9. Vargas 3:51.400
10. Conzelman 4:00.351

So, while Conzelman went progressively slower each round, Vargas just got faster, beating Mirabella
by over 3 seconds in the semis and winning the final against Conzelman by almost 9 seconds. Of
course, it wouldn't have mattered even if she had qualified first with a new track record and then
caught whoever she was up against in each round, due to the way the selection criteria were written
(see below).

> There may be more than meets the eye here but I wouldn't assume there was from that. If Angie
> never gets a crack at a world cup, then I think you have a stronger case.

Vargas never got a crack at a WC in 2002 because Mirabella automatically locked up all the slots.
The one WC she (Mirabella) didn't attend was China, which is where Conzelman (not Vargas, the
pursuit silver medalist from 2001) got the chance to race on a fast (high altitude) track and meet
the time standard. If not for that inequity, then Vargas would have been on the world's team instead
of Mirabella.

The stated purpose of the selection criteria is/was something to the effect of "selecting the best
prepared athletes most capable of medaling at world's", or something to that effect. It's hard to
believe that they accomplished that goal when the person who was selected finished no better than
3rd at nationals just a few weeks prior to world's. People try to justify the selection by pointing
out that Mirabella was ranked #1 in the world at the time, but that just goes to show you how spotty
the level of competition at track WCs actually is - the best Mirabella has ever done at world's
itself is 7th.

Andy Coggan

 

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> But the bigger issue is that, rightly or wrongly, a widespread
> perception
> > >> exists that favoritism plays a HUGE role in how USAC decides who gets selected for
> > >> international competition
>
> > > I think we saw an example of this last year in women's pursuit.
> >
> > Robert, you're putting me in the uncomfortable position of defending USAC.
> >
> > I presume you're referring to the selection of Conzelman over Vargas for worlds. I may be off
> > base but one of the things the USOC requires before they will pay for travel is evidence of
> > medal contention, either through performance or by making a time standard. Conzelman had done
> > this by taking 4th in both the pursuit and the 500 at the China world cup. That probably counted
> > for more than a narrow win for Vargas over Conzelman at nationals after Vargas had posted a
> > slower qualifying time.
>
> You better check your history books, Bob - it was the 3rd place finisher at nationals (i.e.,
> Mirabella) who was chosen to ride the pursuit at worlds, not Conzelman.
>
> As for it being a "narrow win", here are the results round-by-round:
>
> Qualifying:
>
> 1. Conzelman 3:53.079
> 2. Vargas 3:53.460
> 3. Mirabella 3:56.337
> 4. Kimmet 3:56.453
>
> Semi-finals:
>
> 1. Conzelman 3:55.610
> 4. Kimmet 3:58.447
>
> 2. Vargas 3:51.762
> 3. Mirabella 3:54.311
>
> Finals
>
> 1. Vargas 3:51.400
> 2. Conzelman 4:00.351
>
> So, while Conzelman went progressively slower each round, Vargas just got faster, beating
> Mirabella by over 3 seconds in the semis and winning the final against Conzelman by almost 9
> seconds. Of course, it wouldn't have mattered even if she had qualified first with a new track
> record and then caught whoever she was up against in each round, due to the way the selection
> criteria were written (see below).
>
> > There may be more than meets the eye here but I wouldn't assume there was from that. If Angie
> > never gets a crack at a world cup, then I think you have a stronger case.
>
> Vargas never got a crack at a WC in 2002 because Mirabella automatically locked up all the slots.
> The one WC she (Mirabella) didn't attend was China, which is where Conzelman (not Vargas, the
> pursuit silver medalist from 2001) got the chance to race on a fast (high altitude) track and meet
> the time standard. If not for that inequity, then Vargas would have been on the world's team
> instead of Mirabella.
>
> The stated purpose of the selection criteria is/was something to the effect of "selecting the best
> prepared athletes most capable of medaling at world's", or something to that effect. It's hard to
> believe that they accomplished that goal when the person who was selected finished no better than
> 3rd at nationals just a few weeks prior to world's. People try to justify the selection by
> pointing out that Mirabella was ranked #1 in the world at the time, but that just goes to show you
> how spotty the level of competition at track WCs actually is - the best Mirabella has ever done at
> world's itself is 7th.
>
> Andy Coggan

Coogleford,

Vargas was clearly not up to par. That was the determination of the Federation, so why do you think
you would know any better, because you are and exercise physologist? Vargas needs to quit
complaining and train more. Maybe then she could win some events and deserve to be selected.

D

 

[email protected] (scott patton) wrote in message
> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"scott patton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> www.fixedgearfever.com
> >>
> >> Has links to USAC.
> >
> >IOW, if you're racing the match sprint, kilo, keirin, or Olympic sprint, or if you're a woman,
> >you're still screwed.
>
> That is certainly one way to look at it. However, there were no sprinters (men or women), keirin
> racers (men or women), Team Sprinters (Men or women) or ... Elite women on the call. They seemed
> content with the process.

Were they content or just too intimidated by the fear of exclusion by the coaches? I'm not singling
out any particular coach but you can't say USAC does not have a history of favoritism and exclusion
of riders who "Don't play ball"

> Finally, far more elite sprinters have been attending the qualifiers and going to the world cup.
> They have a program and a coach. They also get plane tickets.

In other words, the endurance riders were the only ones with nothing to lose by complaining.

I would think by changing the criteria for the endurance riders USAC is admitting they made an error
in the timing of the release of the WC selection criteria. How this error effects WC contending
sprinters and women is the same as the endurance riders the only differenceis that if the sprinters
are "In" they want to stay "In". If they are currently out of the program they want to get "In".
They deserve the same consideration whether they are complaining or not. Unfortunately USAC are only
putting a small band-aid on yet another traumatic injury to US track cycling.

Eric

 

In article <[email protected]>, Eric Hollenbeck
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (scott patton) wrote in message
>> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"scott patton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> www.fixedgearfever.com
>> >>
>> >> Has links to USAC.
>> >
>> >IOW, if you're racing the match sprint, kilo, keirin, or Olympic sprint, or if you're a woman,
>> >you're still screwed.
>>
>> That is certainly one way to look at it. However, there were no sprinters (men or women), keirin
>> racers (men or women), Team Sprinters (Men or women) or ... Elite women on the call. They seemed
>> content with the process.
>
>Were they content or just too intimidated by the fear of exclusion by the coaches? I'm not singling
>out any particular coach but you can't say USAC does not have a history of favoritism and exclusion
>of riders who "Don't play ball"

Interesting point, and I have not talked to many of the women who would/could be affected, so I
do not know.

I think with Jame taking the brunt of the punishment, it was safe to step up. I know several women
who did write letters, they were just not as vocal.

>> Finally, far more elite sprinters have been attending the qualifiers and going to the world cup.
>> They have a program and a coach. They also get plane tickets.
>
>In other words, the endurance riders were the only ones with nothing to lose by complaining.
>
>I would think by changing the criteria for the endurance riders USAC is admitting they made an
>error in the timing of the release of the WC selection criteria. How this error effects WC
>contending sprinters and women is the same as the endurance riders the only differenceis that if
>the sprinters are "In" they want to stay "In". If they are currently out of the program they want
>to get "In". They deserve the same consideration whether they are complaining or not.

I do agree that the procedure change for only endurance men is odd, but for the women, it wouldnt
have been fair to shaft Erin and Tanya who if I am not mistaken, have qualified spots.

So it come down to Mens sprint. I dunno... it's a mess

>Unfortunately USAC are only putting a small band-aid on yet another traumatic injury to US
>track cycling.

I don't know if I would go that far, but hey... each of us has our own opinions

Scott

--
-*- Scott Patton -*- Colorado Springs, CO -*- http://www.FixedGearFever.com -*- Track Racing
Web Services