Dear Editor,
Jamaicans and sporting fans around the world have been spared the dismal prospect of the Rio Olympics without the participation of megastar Usain Bolt — thanks to the medical exemptions clause in the Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association’s rules governing the selection of current world-ranked athletes who are injured or ill at the time of the National Trials.
For small countries like Jamaica the rule is a good one.
Athletes benefiting from medical exemption, despite their world-ranked status, are not granted automatic selection, but are required, understandably, to prove their fitness before the date of final submission of entries.
In the interest of fairness, transparency, and you could add justice, care must be exercised in deciding what constitutes “proof of fitness”.
Consider the case of the third-placed finisher whose tentative place in the team is threatened by an athlete with a medical exemption. The third-placed finisher is someone who could only have got there after years of hard training and sacrifice, and who desires anything greater (at the moment) than to perform on the stage of what is considered the greatest show on Earth, the Olympics. Just imagine his/her state of anxiety.
Should proof of fitness be based on the findings of a medical team and or an assessment by a coach of the performance in training sessions of the medically exempted athlete? How transparent is that, especially compared to the ultimate in transparency — the Trials itself, witnessed by thousands?
There is no perfect method of resolving whether the third-placed finisher or the medically exempted athlete gets the place, but one suspects that a majority would favour a requirement that demanded of the medically exempt a performance after the Trials bettering that achieved by the third-placed athlete at the Trials.
Better still, have a “run-off “ with the two athletes, there being ample opportunity to arrange such before or after entering the Olympic Village.
The ideals of fairness, transparency and justice would be better served should either or both suggestions be implemented.
Dr Patrick D Robinson
Olympian, Tokyo 1964
Coach, Munich Olympics, 1972
Stony Hill, St Andrew
pdougrobins@gmail.com
Jamaicans and sporting fans around the world have been spared the dismal prospect of the Rio Olympics without the participation of megastar Usain Bolt — thanks to the medical exemptions clause in the Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association’s rules governing the selection of current world-ranked athletes who are injured or ill at the time of the National Trials.
For small countries like Jamaica the rule is a good one.
Athletes benefiting from medical exemption, despite their world-ranked status, are not granted automatic selection, but are required, understandably, to prove their fitness before the date of final submission of entries.
In the interest of fairness, transparency, and you could add justice, care must be exercised in deciding what constitutes “proof of fitness”.
Consider the case of the third-placed finisher whose tentative place in the team is threatened by an athlete with a medical exemption. The third-placed finisher is someone who could only have got there after years of hard training and sacrifice, and who desires anything greater (at the moment) than to perform on the stage of what is considered the greatest show on Earth, the Olympics. Just imagine his/her state of anxiety.
Should proof of fitness be based on the findings of a medical team and or an assessment by a coach of the performance in training sessions of the medically exempted athlete? How transparent is that, especially compared to the ultimate in transparency — the Trials itself, witnessed by thousands?
There is no perfect method of resolving whether the third-placed finisher or the medically exempted athlete gets the place, but one suspects that a majority would favour a requirement that demanded of the medically exempt a performance after the Trials bettering that achieved by the third-placed athlete at the Trials.
Better still, have a “run-off “ with the two athletes, there being ample opportunity to arrange such before or after entering the Olympic Village.
The ideals of fairness, transparency and justice would be better served should either or both suggestions be implemented.
Dr Patrick D Robinson
Olympian, Tokyo 1964
Coach, Munich Olympics, 1972
Stony Hill, St Andrew
pdougrobins@gmail.com