PA NEWS: Inika McPherson shares heartbreak of being passed over for Olympic team

[1989NDN]

Anyone else read the article in the PA News about Inika McPherson being left off the USA women's track and field team? 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

She has a legitimate reason to be upset.  She did everything she was supposed to do.  She trained for months in advance of the Olympic trials, she peaked at the Olympic trials, and she has the requisite experience...2016 Olympics, Pan-Am Games, and several world championship track meets.  She has won on the big stage.  Why leave her off the team?  The excuse given about world rankings was weak.  Inika McPherson deserved to go to Tokyo.  Feel bad for her.

[SmashMouth]

35 minutes ago, 1989NDN said:

Anyone else read the article in the PA News about Inika McPherson being left off the USA women's track and field team? 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

She has a legitimate reason to be upset.  She did everything she was supposed to do.  She trained for months in advance of the Olympic trials, she peaked at the Olympic trials, and she has the requisite experience...2016 Olympics, Pan-Am Games, and several world championship track meets.  She has won on the big stage.  Why leave her off the team?  The excuse given about world rankings was weak.  Inika McPherson deserved to go to Tokyo.  Feel bad for her.

I feel for her. That sucks. But looking at the selection criteria, she clearly should not have made the team. 

[baddog]

1 hour ago, 1989NDN said:

Anyone else read the article in the PA News about Inika McPherson being left off the USA women's track and field team? 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

She has a legitimate reason to be upset.  She did everything she was supposed to do.  She trained for months in advance of the Olympic trials, she peaked at the Olympic trials, and she has the requisite experience...2016 Olympics, Pan-Am Games, and several world championship track meets.  She has won on the big stage.  Why leave her off the team?  The excuse given about world rankings was weak.  Inika McPherson deserved to go to Tokyo.  Feel bad for her.

Why have trials?

[WOSgrad]

On 7/8/2021 at 2:17 PM, SmashMouth said:

I feel for her. That sucks. But looking at the selection criteria, she clearly should not have made the team. 

Could you tell me where you found it?  I have tried to search for that since I first heard about Inika's story a couple of days ago to make some sense as to how a person who finishes 2nd at an track event in a clearly labeled U.S. Olympic Trials, finds herself off of the 3 women's U.S. Olympic high jump squad.

I am trying to understand as this kind of shakes the thought that I had that sports like track and field were the purest form of sport.  No judge or no referee really necessary.  If someone started too quick, everybody knew it.  If a thrower didn't stay inside the circle or the throw was out of bounds everyone knew it.  

The person who ran the fastest, jumped the highest or the longest or threw the longest within those clear parameters was the winner.

Using a "criterion" to determine a qualifier which seems to, at least in some sense, disregard the on field results of the U.S. Olympic Trials kinda puts a kink in that.

[1989NDN]

I get what Smash is saying...Inika McPherson did not have a qualifying jump of 6'5" for the 2021 Olympics.  She had all season to clear 6'5" or higher to knock out the qualifying threshold.  That said, I agree with Baddog and Grad...why have the trials?  Only one jumper at the trials cleared the Olympic standard.  Inika McPherson placed second at the trials, but she was stuck on 6'4" and she did not have a qualifying jump from earlier in the season.  The third place jumper at the trials was also below the mark and did not have a qualifying jump.  Thus, Team USA had to go to the 4th place jumper at the trials who had a qualifying jump earlier in the season.  I get the criteria.  However, I my preference would be for Team USA to take the ladies performing their best late in the season, at the trials, and not someone who had a qualifying jump earlier in the season several months ago.  Reasonable people can disagree.  I would vote for Inika McPherson...SETX bias...and I like her style.  

[SmashMouth]

4 minutes ago, 1989NDN said:

I get what Smash is saying...Inika McPherson did not have a qualifying jump of 6'5" for the 2021 Olympics.  She had all season to clear 6'5" or higher to knock out the qualifying threshold.  That said, I agree with Baddog and Grad...why have the trials?  Only one jumper at the trials cleared the Olympic standard.  Inika McPherson placed second at the trials, but she was stuck on 6'4" and she did not have a qualifying jump from earlier in the season.  The third place jumper at the trials was also below the mark and did not have a qualifying jump.  Thus, Team USA had to go to the 4th place jumper at the trials who had a qualifying jump earlier in the season.  I get the criteria.  However, I my preference would be for Team USA to take the ladies performing their best late in the season, at the trials, and not someone who had a qualifying jump earlier in the season several months ago.  Reasonable people can disagree.  I would vote for Inika McPherson...SETX bias...and I like her style.  

I don't disagree with your logic. They need to revisit their selection criteria, possibly.

[SmashMouth]

35 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

Could you tell me where you found it?  I have tried to search for that since I first heard about Inika's story a couple of days ago to make some sense as to how a person who finishes 2nd at an track event in a clearly labeled U.S. Olympic Trials, finds her was off of the 3 women's U.S. Olympic high jump squad.

I am trying to understand as this kind of shakes the thought that I had that sports like track and field were the purest form of sport.  No judge or no referee really necessary.  If someone started too quick, everybody knew it.  If a thrower didn't stay inside the circle or the throw was out of bounds everyone knew it.  

The person who ran the fastest, jumped the highest or the longest or threw the longest within those clear parameters was the winner.

Using a "criterion" to determine a qualifier which seems to, at least in some sense, disregard the on field results of the U.S. Olympic Trials kinda puts a kink in that.

I'll try to find that link again and post it.

[baddog]

Sports is never about what have you done for me lately. It’s all about how you will perform from now on. 

[tvc184]

it is an absolutely correct decision and/or  it is absolutely a stupid decision.

I think it sucks but maybe I understand the rationale.

It seems to me that you should get the best people together and everybody do whatever activity it is, and whoever comes out in the top three gets to move on.

That is one way to do it. That apparently is not what they go by at least for the high jumpers. The US Olympic committee has apparently set a standard. You have all season to make that standard. If you have never overcome that arbitrary standard during the season, the Olympic trials are a “last chance” to prove you’re worth it.

So if A jumped 6’6” three months ago and B has never cleared 6’5”’ this season, B can come to the trials as a last chance. B might have been better today at the trials but has never done better than A did in the last few months.

I have not read all of that but it seems like the Olympic committee has come up with a magic number. If you beat that magic number sometime in the last year, you qualify. McPherson did not beat that number and had one last chance to do so and did not. 

Do they do that for other track and field events? Is there 100 m dash minimum of 10.0 seconds? So if a guy ran a 9.75 six months ago but hasn’t broken 10.3 since then, does he go over a guy who ran 10.1 at the trials?

If that’s the rules going in and they are the same for everybody, then you go by the rules. I think most people would rather see, who won when you got them all together head to head.

[SmashMouth]

6 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

Could you tell me where you found it?  I have tried to search for that since I first heard about Inika's story a couple of days ago to make some sense as to how a person who finishes 2nd at an track event in a clearly labeled U.S. Olympic Trials, finds her was off of the 3 women's U.S. Olympic high jump squad.

I am trying to understand as this kind of shakes the thought that I had that sports like track and field were the purest form of sport.  No judge or no referee really necessary.  If someone started too quick, everybody knew it.  If a thrower didn't stay inside the circle or the throw was out of bounds everyone knew it.  

The person who ran the fastest, jumped the highest or the longest or threw the longest within those clear parameters was the winner.

Using a "criterion" to determine a qualifier which seems to, at least in some sense, disregard the on field results of the U.S. Olympic Trials kinda puts a kink in that.

Hopefully this link works:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[WOSgrad]

27 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Hopefully this link works:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It does.  Thanks!