Headlines we like to see: A column by Len Johnson

It was the sort of headline all athletics fans love to see: “Impressive Results at Fawkner Park as six walk to qualifying performances.”

The sort of story an old mate of mine at The Age used to call “a walk-up start”. He would trot that line out when there was a report at the footy on Saturday, guaranteeing a disciplinary tribunal hearing for the Monday, hence a walk-up start for a story.

Jared Tallent, who had no need of an Olympic qualifying standard – like his teammate, Luke Adams, he was a pre-selection based on his top-eight finish at the world championships - led the way home.

Nathan Deakes came home second, his standing as the 2007 world champion at 50km guaranteeing him positive publicity, especially with the additional hook of his struggles to overcome injury since.

Two “walk-up starts” there; but even the hard luck stories had a positive side, Chris Erickson and Ian Rayson both well under the Olympic A-standard in finishing third and fourth.

In addition, Regan Lamble and Beki Lee bettered the A-standard in finishing first and second in the women’s 20km.

Strong positive stories all round; would that we could have more of them.

Well, of course, we could, if only we would celebrate all our Olympic qualifiers – A and B-standard alike, and if only all standards were relatively as easy to attain as the walks.

As I’ve written before (http://www.runnerstribe.com/article/post/show/id/936-Who-moved-the-mile-posts-A-Column-By-Len-Johnson), athletics has a policy of not acknowledging all our qualifiers. We don’t recognise the B-standard for selection purposes, so we no longer acknowledge those athletes who attain this (significant) international performance level.

That is something we could change at the stroke of a pen, and even with policies written to limit the grounds for appeal, I don’t see why we don’t do that. An athlete can still appeal their non-selection based on the fact that they have achieved a ‘B’, the minimum required for selection under IAAF/IOC criteria, so we would lose nothing by acknowledging that they have.

The second point is that the walks have a relatively easy standard compared to the other road endurance event, the marathon.

Athletics Australia is quick to set its own marathon standards, arguing that the 2:15/2:37 set by the international body is too slack.

It’s a hard argument to sustain when you look at the figures, especially compared to the road walks. The world record for the men’s 50km road walk is 3:34:14, almost 25 minutes faster than the A-standard of 3:59. For the women’s 20km, the record is 1:25:08, almost 8:30 faster than the Olympic A-mark.

The marathon and 50k walk are comparable in distance, yet the gap between the men’s world record and the A-standard is only 11:30, less than half the corresponding gap for the walk.

So maybe walking an A-standard at the championships gets you a higher place than running 2:15 does.

Not so in three of the past four global championships. In Daegu, an A-standard would have placed 13th in the marathon as against 23rd in the 50km; in Berlin it would have been 15th versus 23rd; and, in Beijing 20th v 24th. At Osaka in 2007, a 3:59 would have finished 11th in the walk, but a 2:15 would have won the marathon.

On those figures, it’s hard to see how anyone can justify slashing the marathon standard while leaving the walk standards untouched.

The marathon cops a double whammy: not only do B-qualifiers get ignored, as with all the other events, but so, too, do those who fall between “our” standard and the IAAF’s.

Let’s acknowledge all our qualifiers and generate more positive stories for our sport. It’s hard enough to grab attention from the various football codes without applying our own restrictions on what constitutes a good story.