Modified Track Selection Criteria - posted

"scott patton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 hidden]>, Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

"scott patton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 -*- fixedgearfever.comfixedgearfever.comOpen ↗ -*- Track Racing
Web Services

"J DASH ME" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IOW, if you're racing the match sprint, kilo, keirin, or Olympic sprint,

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

everyone as aware of this unfair selection as possible. It will be

interesting

Quoted message said:

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 hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message 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 hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 hidden]

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

But the bigger issue is that, rightly or wrongly, a widespread

perception

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

exists that favoritism plays a HUGE role in how USAC decides who gets selected for
international competition

Quoted message said:

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).

Quoted message said:

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 hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

> But the bigger issue is that, rightly or wrongly, a widespread

perception

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> exists that favoritism plays a HUGE role in how USAC decides who gets selected for
> international competition

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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).

Quoted message said:

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 hidden] (scott patton) wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan said:

"scott patton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

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"

Quoted message said:

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 hidden]>, Eric Hollenbeck

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (scott patton) wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan said:

"scott patton" <[email hidden]> 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 -*- fixedgearfever.comfixedgearfever.comOpen ↗ -*- Track Racing
Web Services