Us Indoor Rowing Team Selection

[old] Thomas · Post by **[old] Thomas** » November 12th, 2005, 3:37 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Nov 12 2005, 07:41 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Thomas @ Nov 11 2005, 07:35 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The Ranger comment you made, "and h*** who would want Ranger on any team," is in line with Rupp's <i>subjective theme</i> that you can pull an awesome time and not get picked. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />So the best you can come up with is that there <i><b>may have been</b></i> (3 teams ago) subjective reasoning to <b>NOT </b>pick someone? That's quite different from subjective reasoning <b>TO </b>pick someone. And even yet, I don't think george nz was part of teh selection team.<br /><br />kjgress makes a very good point about things changing as the years go by. Well, some things. The whiners seem to stay rather consistent. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />We are not talking about the same thing. The response by George NZ supports Rupp's <i>subjective theme</i> and that's that.<br /><br />On the issue of who gets to go, it is apparent to me now looking at the numbers that there is nothing close to concrete on who gets picked. Sure, they can't begin to pick someone without an erg score submitted but from there it is other stuff we just don't know about. Why are they taking two people in two different categories and why are they passing on the most populated categories?

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 12th, 2005, 3:54 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Thomas @ Nov 12 2005, 03:37 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Nov 12 2005, 07:41 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Thomas @ Nov 11 2005, 07:35 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The Ranger comment you made, "and h*** who would want Ranger on any team," is in line with Rupp's <i>subjective theme</i> that you can pull an awesome time and not get picked. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />So the best you can come up with is that there <i><b>may have been</b></i> (3 teams ago) subjective reasoning to <b>NOT </b>pick someone? That's quite different from subjective reasoning <b>TO </b>pick someone. And even yet, I don't think george nz was part of teh selection team.<br /><br />kjgress makes a very good point about things changing as the years go by. Well, some things. The whiners seem to stay rather consistent. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />We are not talking about the same thing. The response by George NZ supports Rupp's <i>subjective theme</i> and that's that.<br /><br />On the issue of who gets to go, it is apparent to me now looking at the numbers that there is nothing close to concrete on who gets picked. Sure, they can't begin to pick someone without an erg score submitted but from there it is other stuff we just don't know about. Why are they taking two people in two different categories and why are they passing on the most populated categories? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />As a guy who owns his own company, I'm interested in having the most "solid citizens" representing our company and our "brand" in the marketplace. Concept2 *appears* to be a conservative, well-managed, concern. My bet would be that they've picked the people who they feel will give them the most "bang for the buck" in the most balanced of regards. One can also bet that there were a TON of subjective issues that were considered in making the picks ... as it should be. This is not a selection of a US National Team, so C2 has the option to do as they please to get the most out of the significant investment they'll be making. More power to them.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 12th, 2005, 4:05 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Nov 12 2005, 11:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>One can also bet that there were a TON of subjective issues that were considered in making the picks </td></tr></table><br />That's a bet that any intelligent and observant person would win.<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> ... as it should be. </td></tr></table><br />Fortunately you're not on the Olympic committee.<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This is not a selection of a US National Team </td></tr></table><br />To the contrary, it IS the selection of a national team, that is representing the U.S. overseas. And only U.S. citizens are eligible for selection.<br /><br />The main problem is the hypocrisy. If C2 said they were going to pick only the <img src='http://degiorgi.math.hr/forum/images/smiles/kiss.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> rowers on the team then there would be no question about standards. Rather than that they have layed out at least three different sets of conflicting standards, none of which mean anything except they are going to select who they want at the end to be on the team, i.e. their buddies and a few inert individuals who go along with the flow.<br /><br />The selection of the team has very little to do with performance, and everything to do with the <img src='http://degiorgi.math.hr/forum/images/smiles/kiss.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />.<br /><br />That is how it should be???? <br /><br />Then you must have a very strange company.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 12th, 2005, 4:09 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>One can also bet that there were a TON of subjective issues that were considered in making the picks ... as it should be. This is not a selection of a US National Team, so C2 has the option to do as they please to get the most out of the significant investment they'll be making. More power to them. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mark--<br /><br />With their suggestion of official trials, etc., I (and others, it seems, from the comments on this thread) haved assumed that application for the USIRT is a sporting event, a contest; and fairness in competitive ports is a serious issue. In competitive sports, those who indulge in various sorts of unfairness--cheat, use drugs, bet on the other team, bribe judges, misreport times, etc.--are often banned from sports for life, despite entire careers of achievement. <br /><br />Yes, C2 is a company and can do what they want. But if the selection process for the USIRT in 2003 was intended to be an athletic contest but, nonetheless, was flagrantly unfair, it is my bet that C2 will regret this action until the end of their days. <br /><br />Those who suggest a game and then ruin it by undermining the basic conditions of the game are shortsided, if not perverse. In the end, they will pay much heavier dues that those that suffered immediately, in the short run, because of that unfairness.<br /><br />Sure, those who were judged unfairly suffer. But those who ruin their own game, well...<br /><br />Let the discussion continue. It is an interesting conversation.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 12th, 2005, 4:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 12 2005, 04:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Nov 12 2005, 11:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>One can also bet that there were a TON of subjective issues that were considered in making the picks </td></tr></table><br />That's a bet that any intelligent and observant person would win.<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> ... as it should be. </td></tr></table><br />Fortunately you're not on the Olympic committee.<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This is not a selection of a US National Team </td></tr></table><br />To the contrary, it IS the selection of a national team, that is representing the U.S. overseas. And only U.S. citizens are eligible for selection.<br /><br />The main problem is the hypocrisy. If C2 said they were going to pick only the <img src='http://degiorgi.math.hr/forum/images/smiles/kiss.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> rowers on the team then there would be no question about standards. Rather than that they have layed out at least three different sets of conflicting standards, none of which mean anything except they are going to select who they want at the end to be on the team, i.e. their buddies and a few inert individuals who go along with the flow.<br /><br />The selection of the team has every little to do with performance, and everything to do with the <img src='http://degiorgi.math.hr/forum/images/smiles/kiss.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />.<br /><br />That is how it should be???? <br /><br />Then you must have a very strange company. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John:<br /><br />Your response barely deserves a rebuttal, as you are, as you have been many times before, a person who seems to like to simply insult others with no regard for fact or sound reason. You fail to realize that this is NOT a "national team" ... it's essentially a "Concept 2 Team" that just happens to be representing the US because there is no US National Team. IT'S THEIR MONEY SO THEY CAN DO AS THEY PLEASE. Gosh, it probably sucks to you that you can't impose your world view on everyone. Grow up, man. This is America, not CUBA. And thank goodness for that!<br /><br />-- Mark<br />

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 12th, 2005, 4:16 pm

PS -- It would appear that many of the "Olympic Committees" around the world have some problems with little things like "ethics", "honesty", "stewardship", and "sound governance". I take it as a compliment that I would not be fit to serve on such.<br /><br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 12th, 2005, 4:43 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>IT'S THEIR MONEY SO THEY CAN DO AS THEY PLEASE </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />Sports is bigger than C2. If they are going to use sports to make money but (following your advice) just "do as they please," when they suggest an athletic contest, they are in for a BIIIIIIIIIIIIIG surprise.<br /><br />BTW, after this odd selection procedure in 2003, in 2004, the qualification time in the 50-59 lwts was set at 6:30, in any estimation, an absurdly tough standard. Maybe I am just dense, but I can't figure out how this qualification time has anything to do with the possibility of winning a medal at EIRC. At the time, I was the only one in the division who had ever rowed 6:30, and the championship record in the division before I rowed 6:32 at EIRC 2003 was 6:43. The second place finisher in 2003 rowed 6:46. <br /><br />It is also well known that in the 50s divisions, rowers tend to slow down about two seconds a year. My best row in the fall of 2004 (and still the world record at the time) had been 6:28, rowed a year earlier at BIRC 2003.<br /><br />I think the picture is pretty clear. <br /><br />I suppose I had a certain possibility of meeting the 6:30 standard in order to qualify for the 2004 team, but it seems evident that the standard was set to make these chances very slim (and therefore, in essence, to eliminate this division from consideration). If similarly stiff standards had been set in the other divisions and these qualification times had been respected, there very easily could have been no qualifiers at all.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 12th, 2005, 4:50 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Your response barely deserves a rebuttal, as you are, as you have been many times before, a person who seems to like to simply insult others with no regard for fact or sound reason. </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />Fine opening statement in an argument. I'm sure you have won over the jury with it!<br /><br />This kind of argument is exactly the problem with C2's selection procedure. <br /><br />Judgments such as these are arbitrary, ad hominem, based on fragmentary evidence, and as various as there are points of view in a conversation. Worse, they are based on internet exchanges and therefore have nothing to do with real personal contact and substantial interpersonal knowledge. <br /><br />If C2 wants to run their business on argument and judgments of this sort, I suspect they are in for _other_ surprises, too!<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 12th, 2005, 4:58 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Grow up, man. This is America, not CUBA. And thank goodness for that! </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think that both the sport of rowing and those interested in sports everywhere are very interested in fairness, despite what ethical pragmatism might be the norm in the United States or in US companies. If unfairness in sports is to be the norm here by sports vendors such as C2, then many, many people, in many, many places, would not at all say "thank goodness for Amerca."<br /><br />Ugly stuff you are saying, more fuel for those around the world who believe in the stereotype of the "ugly American."<br /><br />ranger

[old] michaelb · Post by **[old] michaelb** » November 12th, 2005, 4:59 pm

My view was, and is, that it was wrong and probably a mistake not to have selected Ranger for the USIRT in 2003 based on his performance and trial that year. I don't really believe in the grand conspiracy theory though, these things happen in sports. However, that was 2 years ago.<br /><br />As far as I know, Ranger did not submit a qualifying time this year, and may not have really participated in any of the development team tests. Therefore, I don't think there is any basis to complain about the selection of this years team. If you don't submit a time, you don't deserve to be considered for the team. As an interested fan of Ranger, and someone who hopes he goes to BIRC or EIRC and races anyway, I think this was a mistake on his part.<br /><br />Congratulations to everyone who was selected and also to everyone on the development team. Your times and performances are impressive. We will be cheering for all of you. Good luck.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 12th, 2005, 5:00 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Nov 12 2005, 12:13 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />You fail to realize that this is NOT a "national team" ... it's essentially a "Concept 2 Team" </td></tr></table><br />What does USIRT stand for? <br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />that just happens to be representing the US because there is no US National Team. </td></tr></table><br />Whoa! Mark! You are very good at double talk. Perhaps you should be on the committee next year! <br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Gosh, it probably sucks to you that you can't impose your world view on everyone. Grow up, man. This is America, not CUBA. And thank goodness for that! </td></tr></table><br />Your point is.... they have objective trial races in Cuba? <br /><br />Thank goodness for that! <br />

[old] joanvb · Post by **[old] joanvb** » November 12th, 2005, 5:18 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 12 2005, 03:43 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If similarly stiff standards had been set in the other divisions and these qualification times had been respected, there very easily could have been no qualifiers at all.<br /><br /><br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'm aware that similarly stiff standards were set in at least one other division in 2004...mine, 50-59 lightweight WOMEN. The standard was 7:27. My world record at the time was 7:25.1, and no one had been close at the previous CRASH-Bs or EIRCs. I rowed a 7:26.1 for the 2004 qualifying. <br /><br /><br />I know I'm going to regret posting.... <br /><br />Joan

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 12th, 2005, 5:26 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 12 2005, 04:58 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Grow up, man. This is America, not CUBA. And thank goodness for that! </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think that both the sport of rowing and those interested in sports everywhere are very interested in fairness, despite what ethical pragmatism might be the norm in the United States or in US companies. If unfairness in sports is to be the norm here by sports vendors such as C2, then many, many people, in many, many places, would not at all say "thank goodness for Amerca."<br /><br />Ugly stuff you are saying, more fuel for those around the world who believe in the stereotype of the "ugly American."<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Rich:<br /><br />Ugly stuff I'm saying? Stereotype of "Ugly American"? Fuel for those overseas that have a problem with America? What a bunch of baloney.<br /><br />You insult me with your arrogant insinuations.<br /><br />I travel extensively overseas ... in fact I have just purchased a property overseas because I love the diversity that living amongst those that are different than me provides. I'm talking about an apartment in a town where you're unlikely to hear English spoken once the entire day as you go about your business. I've learned two languages in addition to English, and work to speak them when I'm overseas. This "ugly American" stereotype is, without a doubt, mostly conjured up by our media. I've NEVER been treated like an "Ugly American" overseas because I'm not one. Sure, I've seen "Ugly Americans" -- they're the ones who can't understand why there isn't a McDonalds on every corner in the world. But, I don't compromise my beliefs and my philosophy on what's right and wrong (or reasonable or fair) just because someone overseas questions me -- I discuss and debate with them as I would anyone here in the US. And, there are "Ugly Foreigners" in every country I've visited in the world. America certainly does not have the market cornered in this regard.<br /><br />All this being said, what in the world does it have to do with the discourse we're having on the selection process? Once again, let's get to the facts -- this is NOT a "National Team" which would imply being funded by the citizens of the US, or an organization funded by same -- and C2 can do what they wish with their investment. I know this causes great heartburn for some -- and my only response can be "whatever". There are always people who have a problem with ownership and the privileges it provides. Once again, "whatever".<br /><br />-- Mark

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 12th, 2005, 5:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm aware that similarly stiff standards were set in at least one other division in 2004...mine, 50-59 lightweight WOMEN. The standard was 7:27. My world record at the time was 7:25.1, and no one had been close at the previous CRASH-Bs or EIRCs. I rowed a 7:26.1 for the 2004 qualifying. <br /><br /><br />I know I'm going to regret posting.... </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, there were some other stiff times set, even others besides yours and mine; but some of the times set for other divisions were not this stiff at all. <br /><br />Honestly, Joan, I don't understand your qualification time, either (or, for instance, Paul Hendershott's, which was just as stiff). <br /><br />Bizarre stuff. <br /><br />Again, perhaps I am just dense, but I don't see how these stiff qualification times (along with other times not this stiff at all) have anything at all to do with winning a medal at EIRC.<br /><br />Of course, in my case, these additional oddnesses in 2004 were especially disconcerting, given the oddnesses in 2003.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 12th, 2005, 5:35 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>All this being said, what in the world does it have to do with the discourse we're having on the selection process? Once again, let's get to the facts -- this is NOT a "National Team" which would imply being funded by the citizens of the US, or an organization funded by same -- and C2 can do what they wish with their investment. I know this causes great heartburn for some -- and my only response can be "whatever". There are always people who have a problem with ownership and the privileges it provides. Once again, "whatever". </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, it was my view entirely that C2 was acting as though they owned indoor rowing. Not a wise practice either, I think, although you are indeed right that C2 can do what they want. We are all free to embarrass ourselves ethically and otherwise.<br /><br />Sorry to say so, but if I were C2, I would feel _very_ embarrassed.<br /><br />I am also sorry that you don't see my point, Mark.<br /><br />No need to restate it.<br /><br />ranger

Concept2 Forum

Us Indoor Rowing Team Selection

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions