TargetTalk

I have read the news brief about the composition of the British shooting team (British Shooting have revamped their insupportable website now, by the way - decent job by Craig Davies !).

I was a bit bewildered. The UK has gotten enough slots as the host country, so they did not really depend upon securing quota places; and yet, a couple of slots appear unfilled. And why only Gorgs Geikie in women's sport pistol, and not Julia Lydall (or Vicky Mullin) in air pistol?

I am a bit at a loss at understanding...

Alexander

Alexander wrote:I am a bit at a loss at understanding...

The published British Olympic Association / British Shooting selection policy has been strictly adhered to.

The shooters knew what they had to do to be in the mix for selection.

"The Selection Committee reserves the right not to select as many athletes as there may be quota places/host nation places available"

Sure.
:-(

"All athletes must have shot a minimum MCS in their event in the ISSF major international competitions nominated in Appendix 1"

"The MCS required by event is listed in Appendix 2"

No quota places were returned if there was an athlete with the MCS (minimum consideration score) in that event who could fill the place.

Yes, you have very likely indicated the problem. I believe you.

As David says, the ladies (and male pistol shooters) failed to shoot the mcs scores - which were a much higher standard than the Olympic mqs. I agree though that it's a shame.

Rob.

The decision was formally correct.

It was also silly and self-destructive for our sport, to the extreme.

One would never expect anything different from British Shooting. It is their style. Has ever been.

Public criticism from outside the sport can now also be here:
http://www.insidethegames.biz/blogs/17294

Very revealing is the tone of Phil Scanlan in his interview with that journalist: blunt blustering arrogance and blaming the athletes; in vain trying to veil the bad conscience and the knowledge that they did wrong.

Alexander

I believe it is a shame not to give the chance to an athlete to shoot in his home Olympics. Even if the chances to finish above half the field (as stated the MCS were based to equal Beijing's top 50% performances) the experience an athlete gains from such an event makes him a lot more likely to win in the future should he continue to improve.
Especially since the costs for all of the above is very low considering that there are no expensive air tickets etc involved to send this athlete to the Olympics in his homeland.


PS. I am not from the UK.

You know, when I read Alan Hubbard's first (above-linked) article
http://www.insidethegames.biz/blogs/17294
about the two British rapidfire pistol shooters, I could sense that his criticism was basically right (notably because I myself had already felt so before, LOL).
But at that time, I found something a bit inconclusive or maybe exaggerated in his musing about a general bias AGAINST pistol shooters within the ranks of the mummies that make up GB's shooting sports functionaries.

[Explanation and disclosure: I have no particular bias against functionaries in shooting sports organisation. I am one such dubious creature myself :-), and I know what work we do and what our conditions and frames are - complex circumstances of which plaintive shooters are mostly not aware. But exactly because of my own work and related profession, I also clearly know the difference between good and bad organisational work. The British shooting organisations are simply ABYSMALLY bad, on a European standard comparison]

Back to Alan Hubbard. He may have had in mind his previous article when he wrote about Morgan Cook and Ian Jack, and about the clay shooter ladies, (Abbey Burton, Charlotte Kerwood - just that there is was probably just traditional old British class prejudice, as was mused in a clay shooting magazine). Only after I had found and read *this* preceding article as well, I understood his conclusion that previously had seemed a bit of a leap to me.

And you know what? He is indeed right. The exclusion of Mick Gault may have been reasonably motivated (and he would not have had a chance to even come close to any medal anyhow). Also, one may be reminded of Ragnar Skanaker. But behind this superficial - and in Gault's case actually not unconvincing - reasoning, the real bias and unfairness showed up when quota places were sneakily bartered and exchanged for more promising *and* more politically correct ones, and Hubbard has unveiled that, in his usual well-readable style:

http://www.insidethegames.biz/blogs/16303

Alexander

As a reminder, here is the list of the "host nation quota places" there were allocated by the IOC as per usual (gracious) Olympic custom. You can see where BOA and British Shooting disregarded the sense and the spirit of the Olympic Charter, and bartered and shifted these places, or did not use them at all:

"Each nation can earn a maximum of 28 Quota Places: one each in trap and skeet women, and two each in all other events.

For the host country of the Olympics, there are reserved 9 Quota Places:

four in Trap and Skeet for Men and Women events;
50m Rifle 3 Positions Men
10m Air Rifle Women
25m Rapid Fire Pistol Men,
10m Air Pistol Men
25m Pistol Women"

Source:
http://www.issf-sports.org/results/og_q ... laces.ashx

Now, after the whole fracas of the shooting selection decisions has been addressed by some journalist(s), none other than Sebastian Coe has found a befitting assessment. It was not meant to designate the shooting decisions, but it applies perfectly to their foul play:

“I’ve always nudged selectors towards giving athletes the inestimable experience of being there. It may not count. It may not be the moment that they’re going to get a medal, but just to be there is such invaluable experience – understanding the enormity of it all, being in the village, learning to manage your time. (...)
If you have the opportunity to send young people in to that environment, even knowing that success would just be getting through the first round, then I think you should take it. It gives them a two-week blast of Olympic reality that really is money in the bank for the future.”

Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/shar ... -at-games/

But then, we know what kind of people _these_ sports functionaries are. Well. Not only these.
See Taekwondo. See Rhythmic Gymnastics. See Fencing. Quite a little shop of horrors.

Whilst I totally agree, Gemili ran the A standard time and also finished in the top two at our national selection meeting - so according to the our selection policy he was selected anyway.

For our (non-selected) shooters, it would have been an invaluable experience.

Rob.

We seem to agree on this point.

We might even agree (dare I hope it? better not!) on the meaning and Olympic intent of host nation quota places, as granted by the IOC via the international federations in continuous practice. :-(

PS, and not on this topic now:
There also exist, as I recall, "personal invitations" to a very few athletes, directly from the IOC. These are rare recognitions for longtime or multiple Olympians of extraordinary standing. Did not Afanasijs Kuzmins receive such a personal ticket, for his now ninth Olympic Games? Or are these ranked among and taken from the "normal" Tripartite Commission wildcards?

Alexander

Alexander wrote:We seem to agree on this point.

We might even agree (dare I hope it? better not!) on the meaning and Olympic intent of host nation quota places, as granted by the IOC via the international federations in continuous practice. :-(

<snip>

Alexander

Sorry to keep doing it but I have to agree again ! ;)

It's a shame the people in the top seats of BS and the BOC don't seem to be singing from the same hymsheet as Lord Coe. I also wonder how vociferous were the coaching staff in proposing their shooters for selection despite their lack of attainment of the MCS's. I guess on the latter we'll never know.

Rob.

Here, of general interest. This is what Morgan Cook (rapidfire pistol shooter) just wrote yesterday, commenting in public on Alan Hubbard's article:

I would very much like to highlight a few points to clarify the situation:
I was appointed Captain of the British Army RFP Team a few months before receiving the RFP cartridge pistols from British Shooting in March 2010
Although complete novices to the sport of Olympic RFP the Army Team fully embraced the training and within 6 months I achieved an MQS at an official trials match and was selected to represent Scotland at the 2010 CWG Delhi
2 weeks before the start of the 2010 CWG I was deselected as my qualifying score could not be authenticated? The GB Head Coach signed and dated the score card! This was the writing on the wall which I unfortunately missed

Within 12 months of receiving the weapons I achieved a score of 572/600 at an official GB Trials Match. British Shooting Phil Scanlon would not allow an athlete to represent GBR at a World Cup unless this score was achieved.
A score of 572/600 was extremely difficult to achieve and was set too high at 12 points above the MQS score set by the ISSF which enables qualification to the Olympic Games

I had to pay £500 for the GB Tracksuit and had to find nearly £4000 to cover my way whilst representing GBR at the World Cups in Sydney and Korea
In March 2011, within just 12 months of receiving the cartridge pistol, and competing in just one event beforehand, I achieved the Olympic MQS at both World Cups in Sydney and Korea. I was very pleased, within such a short period of time I gained an Olympic MQS meaning I could compete at the 2012 Olympic Games through use of the free Host Nation Quota Place provided to Team GB
The 2012 Olympic Games Selection Policy was released by British Shooting in April 2011. I was in Korea at the time. The policy stated that a RFP athlete had to achieve a 'British Shooting MCS score of 576/600' at a World Cup event or they would not be considered
I informed British Shooting that the Olympic Champion of 2008 had achieved a score above 576/600 only twice in his last five Major events. It was explained that RFP scores fluctuated between 73 - mid 90% . Whereas, for the other disciplines the scores were always fairly consistent, high 90%

Furthermore, I was informed that there was a window of opportunity of just 4 months to achieve the 'Phil Scanlon British Shooting MCS 576/600'. I was limited to the World Cups of USA and Germany, and the Euro Championships Belgrade
British Shooting provided no training venue and no funding, I managed to secure resources to cover costs for theses events
On the final day of training at the Olympic Training Camp in Germany (organised by me, there is no range in the UK fit for purpose) I achieved a score of 587/600, signed and dated by the GB Coach
I didn't achieve the 'British Shooting MCS of 576/600' by August 2011 and was told by Scanlon THE DOOR WAS CLOSED! I still have the email
I explained there were still another 5 World Cups and 4 Continental Championships available between August 2011 and July 2012 - the answer from Scanlon was THE DOOR HAS CLOSED!

British Shooting motto is 'Inspired to Succeed'?
I've certainly not been inspired by Scanlon. In my opinion, he didn't make it to Olympic level and has now stopped potentially 6 pistol athletes from making it - Gault, Baxter, Lydall, Mullin, Jack and myself. These athletes had all achieved Olympic MQS as set (at correct level) by the ISSF. Scanlon made the decision not to use the Host Nation Quota Places! He should be held to account and answer why this decision was made.
Let the Games begin!!

Source:
http://www.insidethegames.biz/blogs/172 ... selections

I can't remember for sure, but I don't recall Morgan or Ian acheiving the Olympic MQS at any of the world cups. I'd need to go back and check but I was following the GB team scores at all the WC's and other major matches and never spotted such scores being posted.
<Edit> as per below, I was wrong and they did indeed shoot Olympic MQS scores.

And to correct the post - no one stopped 6 people from making it, we only had 3 pistol places given to us. But I agree we really should have used the ones we had athletes with MQS's in.

Rob.

RobStubbs wrote:I can't remember for sure, but I don't recall Morgan or Ian acheiving the Olympic MQS at any of the world cups.

The ISSF website lists Morgan Cook with the achieved two MQS results (Changwon and Sydney), so I suppose he has not really invented this claim. Mind you, he made it barely with 562 and 561. But he made it.
http://www.issf-sports.org/shooters/sho ... 2508197201

And Ian Jack shot 560 at the European Championships 2011 in Belgrade: also an MQS.
http://www.issf-sports.org/shooters/sho ... 2903198301

Alexander

Alexander wrote:

RobStubbs wrote:I can't remember for sure, but I don't recall Morgan or Ian acheiving the Olympic MQS at any of the world cups.

The ISSF website lists Morgan Cook with the achieved two MQS results (Changwon and Sydney), so I suppose he has not really invented this claim. Mind you, he made it barely with 562 and 561. But he made it.
http://www.issf-sports.org/shooters/sho ... 2508197201

And Ian Jack shot 560 at the European Championships 2011 in Belgrade: also an MQS.
http://www.issf-sports.org/shooters/sho ... 2903198301

Alexander

Yes apologies you're right they did both shoot MQS's but not good enough scores to gain the BS selection scores which as Morgan mentioned, was too high a target for them.

Rob.

Here is my comprehensive comment on the performance of the entire British pistol shooting team at these Olympic Games at home (consisting of a single [1] woman):

Gorgs Geikie did her best in (women's) .22 sport pistol. After the first part (precision) she stood at rank 34, and after the second part (rapid fire) she now scores an overall rank of 37 out of 39, with a result of 562.
That is not high; but her training opportunities in sport pistol were much disadvantaged in comparison to most of the other shooters at the Olympics.

(The same, incidentally, is true for the Olympic Rapidfire Pistol shooters - only that British Shooting succeeded in keeping these away from the Olympics, in spite of granted host nation quota place;
while they unfortunately HAD to nominate Gorgs, with loudly gnashing teeth - they never thought that she would be able to make the arbitrarily high "British extra qualification score", which is FAR above the Olympic MQS).

Luckily, Great Britain has several very good female pistol shooters besides Gorgs, and at least three excellent juniors (girls) too.
Unluckily, the notable "inspired-to-fail" attitude of British Shooting makes sure that these talents receive no decent support and are not even sent abroad to compete (!!!). As in the recent European U-21 championships, where only Kristian Callaghan was sent.
Well, that is Phil Scanlan for you, true to his form.

Alexander

Luckily, Great Britain has several very good female pistol shooters besides Gorgs, and at least three excellent juniors (girls) too.
Unluckily, the notable "inspired-to-fail" attitude of British Shooting makes sure that these talents receive no decent support and are not even sent abroad to compete (!!!). As in the recent European U-21 championships, where only Kristian Callaghan was sent.

Alexander,

We would all like to see a much larger pool of shooters in all disciplines supported so that they may develop their potential.

But where is the money coming from to do this?

they unfortunately HAD to nominate Gorgs, with loudly gnashing teeth - they never thought that she would be able to make the arbitrarily high "British extra qualification score", which is FAR above the Olympic MQS

I should be interested to hear the evidence to support your contention that they (BS?) were reluctant to nominate Georgina Geike. I presume that the sources are in the public domain and verifiable?

The "British extra qualification score" which is in fact the Minimum Consideration Score (MCS) was imposed upon British Shooting (BS) by the British Olympic Association (BOA). BS were obliged to calculate the MCS in accordance with the parameters that they were given and it applied to all disciplines. So, any complaint with regard to the MCS should be directed at the BOA.

Rutty