Who moved the mile posts: A Column By Len Johnson

Tweet

When I ran my second marathon back in 1977, the first official split came at what was supposed to be three miles.

As soon as our pack of (ever-so-slightly) sub-six minute milers heard, “the minutes are 14”, we knew something was wrong. We expected “17,’ might have been fooled by “16”, but 14: no way.

Someone had moved the mile posts. We all had a laugh about it then, but we weren’t laughing later when, instead of turning into the finish on the oval at Point Cook RAAF base, we were directed back the way we had come to make good the missing distance.

These days, it’s moved goal posts that get most of the limelight. Whenever the slightest change is proposed to a pre-existing set of circumstances – like a government benefit – someone complains loudly that “you can’t move the goal posts.”

If the goal posts are moved, annoying as it is, the remedy is simple. All you have to do is adjust your sights.

Mile posts, however, are a measure of progress. Moving them is much more disruptive. Someone always has to decide where the goal posts are set, but each mile post is supposed to be precisely one mile after the preceding marker.

How many of us tick off each successive kilometre or mile in a marathon. It’s easier to break the distance down into manageable chunks than to always think of 26 miles 385 yards, or 42 kilometres 195 metres.

Don’t mess with the mile posts then which, unfortunately, is something Athletics Australia has been doing for quite some time over its attitude to world championships and Olympic qualifying performances.

First, here’s how the system works. The IAAF, acting either on its own behalf (world championships) or on behalf of the IOC (Olympics) sets an entry, or qualifying, standard for each event on the program. Indeed, it sets two – an A-standard and a B-standard.

For the Olympics, national federations can enter up to three athletes per event provided all have the A-standard, or one provided that athlete has achieved the B-standard. At world championships, it’s permissible to mix A’s and B’s, but you can only enter one athlete with a B-standard.

The IAAF also sets a qualifying period which, up until 2011, was 1 January of the previous year. For this year’s world championships, however, the qualifying period was shortened, commencing from 1 October, 2010. For London 2012, the period started on 1 May, 2011.

Why do I say Athletics Australia has moved the mile posts in recent years? Two reasons: first, because it has habitually shortened the qualifying period; and, second, because it has stopped acknowledging B-qualifiers.

It is quite entitled to do so, but both measures have the effect of ignoring athletes who have passed a significant athletics milestone in qualifying for selection for the world championships or Olympic Games.

Regularly through the year, Athletics Australia produces and updates a list of qualified athletes for major championships. These always used to include those who had achieved the B-standard. For some time, they haven’t. As well, the lists do not include athletes who achieved either an A or B-standard within the IAAF period but outside the Athletics Australia period.

Does it matter? Yes, it does, I would argue. Athletics is the most measurable of sports. These measures apply to many categories – world records, area and national records, all-comers’, meeting and personal records and qualifying performances.

Now, of course, the mere fact of achieving a qualifying performance does not guarantee selection, but it does make you eligible to be selected. It is a milestone whose passing should be acknowledged.

Each and every record is remarked upon. No-one ever says the fact that a record is a poor one, nowhere near world standard, is reason not to acknowledge it. Qualifying performances have already jumped that particular hurdle – even a B-standard is a world-class performance.

The other thing about acclaiming all those who reach the qualifying standards is that it emphasises the depth in the sport. From a publicity point of view, far better a long list of ‘eligibles’ than a short one, I would have thought.

From time to time, our premier Olympic sports go the other way. Even further back than the period of which I am now writing, Athletics Australia once announced a AA-standard, denoting an even higher level of performance as the basis for automatic selection. When it came to that year’s nationals, only half a dozen or so athletes qualified for automatic selection.

Swimming did the same thing this year and our most successful Olympic sport managed to turn its national championships’ narrative into one about how few swimmers had won an automatic spot in the team. Geoff Huegill, one of 2010’s great news stories with his comeback, was reported as “missing” selection because he did not attain the standard.

Huegill, who was otherwise fully qualified, was selected anyway. This raises another point: if you are going to select most of those who get the international federation’s qualifying performance anyway, why bother with the automatic process in the first place.

Here are some of the athletes who do not appear on AA’s list of ‘qualified athletes’ for Daegu but have achieved a B-standard since 1 October. Steve Hooker is on top of it (though he and Dani Samuels qualify as defending champions), but it also includes Steve Solomon and Sean Wroe, Lachlan Renshaw, Jeff Riseley and Craig Mottram, Dale Stevenson and Jarrod Bannister, Tamsyn Lewis, Jana Rawlinson and Lauren Boden.

All these athletes, and others who have attained the B-standard, deserve recognition for attaining that particular milestone. For some, it is merely a mark on the way to something bigger and better; for others, it is the most significant mark they will ever reach.

In all cases, in the most measurable of sports, it should be acknowledged.