# female olympic team controversy



## Reed (Jun 18, 2002)

your thoughts on this:

http://www.adrsportred.ca/resource_centre/pdf/English/NR-023232.pdf


----------



## hoody123 (Aug 11, 2004)

Certainly an interesting read, but can someone offer a bit more layperson context?

What's the gist of the appeal? Who wants on the team, and what's there rationale for not being on it now? (I actually did read the entire thing, and to be honest the only thing that I got from this is that the FCA didn't exactly shine in their professionalism department)


----------



## ontario moose (Aug 8, 2003)

*I like this part the best*

*The onus is on the FCA to ensure that Olympic selection criteria are clear to all athletes.
All testimonies have been credible, but Marie-Pier Beaudet’s convinced me that the criteria
were not clear when she competed in the Toronto event. I found her entirely credible when
she testified that she understood the Toronto event to only serve to designate three (3)
Canadian representatives for the tournament in Boé. She was also equally credible when
she admitted that if the selection criteria had specified that the Toronto ranking could be
used to fill Olympic spots turned down by other NOCs, she would have shot accordingly.
Could she have beaten Kateri Vrakking? No one knows, and I cannot evaluate hypotheses
based on the results from Boé nor the 2007 ranking.*



Sort of reminds me of a Sienfeld epsode when Kustansa was caught doing the funky chicken with the cleaning lady and got fired.. "If I would have known that this type of activity would be frounded upon I wouldn't have done it"..

Therefore if you only munkey around at the trials/spring classic and find out after that if I would have tried harder.. da!

G


----------



## fingerzzz (Mar 2, 2005)

*Wow...*

This is a very interesting story...
I am with Ontario Moose on this one...

Do we really want some one to represent Canada that thinks it is okay to not give it 100% all the time?


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

hoody123 said:


> Certainly an interesting read, but can someone offer a bit more layperson context?
> 
> What's the gist of the appeal? Who wants on the team, and what's there rationale for not being on it now? (I actually did read the entire thing, and to be honest the only thing that I got from this is that the FCA didn't exactly shine in their professionalism department)


At the Spring Classic a qualifier was held to see which 3 women would be sent to Boe to attempt to win a spot for Canada at the Olympics. For a lack of better terminology, a last chance qualifier was being held in Boe for which I believe one or two spots were available to be won by countries not presently holding a spot. Canada was first in line for a spot if one of the countries already holding a spot withdrew from the Olympics. Netherlands did just this at Boe. That gave Canada an Olympic spot. And in the process took Canada out of the qualifier to be held in Boe....... no need to compete now. 

So, the FCA then awarded the OLY spot to Kateri (sp) based upon her performance in Toronto. Ms. Beadet's contention is that the Toronto tournament was not intended to ultimately pick the individual going to China, but only pick the three athletes to compete in the qualifier in Boe. Essentially her contention is that she was only trying to be in the top three, not intent on winning in Toronto.

It looks like the Arbitrator has sided with her, and I believe a tournament is being held in Peterborough to decide who goes.


----------



## dutchy (Mar 21, 2004)

hoody123 said:


> Certainly an interesting read, but can someone offer a bit more layperson context?
> 
> What's the gist of the appeal? Who wants on the team, and what's there rationale for not being on it now? (I actually did read the entire thing, and to be honest the only thing that I got from this is that the FCA didn't exactly shine in their professionalism department)



to elaborate a bit hoody......

the spring classic/trials weekend has always been used as the tournament to pick the olympic team. Since the Canadian women had not yet qualified for a spot the trials were used as a competition to pick three women that would get the chance to represent Canada in Boe, France to compete for one of a few remaining womens olympic spots.

the tournament in boe was broken down as a usual fita. However most of the top eshelon shooters had already qualified spots for their countries. So a women could qualify for her country by finishing top 8 in the regular competition (unlikely due to the top female archers still competing)(i think it was top 8) or there is a seperate match play competition done for countries who havent yet qualified. ie: Canada

However Canada was also one of the first teams on a waiting list for a spot if any country didnt want to use thier spot. Relinquish...

The Netherlands relinquished a spot, opening it to Canada. Therefore Canada was no longer allowed to compete in the seperate competition due to the fact that they had a spot. The women in Boe from Canada were there competing for themselves. If one had earned a spot then she would represent Canada and not the winner of the trials.

Because the spot was relinquished and we fell into it sort of speak Canada nominated the winner of the trials - Kateri. However the trials were stated to be used to pick the team for boe.

Kateri won the trials and was nominated, marie piere said she didnt compete to win at the trials but to get top 3 to go to france

Hence all the protests........

A litigator/mitagator...whatever was later sent in after many protests to resolve the issue. They decided to hold another trials between the three women from Boe. The winner will get the spot. I believe it is to be held in Peterborough this weekend........?

I hope this clears a bit up Hoody

ive been wondering when this would hit archerytalk??? everything i have heard has kinda been a bit of reading and some grapevine.. if anyone knows of anything i left out please fill in some blanks......


----------



## dutchy (Mar 21, 2004)

i guess grey eagle types faster.......:tongue:


----------



## JDoupe (Dec 9, 2006)

...Is that not what a coach is for? Should he/she not have understood this and made the archer aware?


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

JDoupe said:


> ...Is that not what a coach is for? Should he/she not have understood this and made the archer aware?


Again, the contention is that there was no formal indication that the Spring Classic Qualifier could ultimately be used to pick the individual whom would represent Canada. But that the results of the qualifier in Boe, France would be used to pick the spot.

However, as Dutchy indicated, in the past the qualifier held in Toronto, has been used for this criteria. And in fact that is how the Men's team was picked this year. The difference being that the men had already secured 3 spots in prior competitions.


----------



## Jay (Sep 18, 2002)

If the FCA had published that, if the wait list spot opened then it would go to Toronto's Trials a month earlier, there would be no issue. It doesn't help when they compose it the night of the issue in France.

The redo of trials I think is most fair and proper at this time. It will be an interesting result.

Marie has proved herself in FITA rounds with several 1310+ but Kateri has been amazing this year. A 115 in Matchplay, 12th in Domenican Rep. and 6th (!!!!) in France, which in my opinion had a far more challenging field then the Olympics will have.

So the trials will be neat to see. Best of luck to the women going.


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

*sandbagging*

I think that if you are in contention for a spot you should shoot to your fullest capabilities at all times till the last arrow is released , this is not a game this is the real thing here ... If you can turn your game off and on like a light switch then either you are really good or have too big an ego and you will crash at the real thing under pressure... Seems a shoot off is in the works so someone please post results as soon as outcome is determined thanks....Her coach should have been on top of the situation and also had her keep her game up , who do we blame ... Also we as tax payers pay to have the coaches exspenses covered , we cannot afford a foopa like this at the real show......


----------



## bigdawg (Feb 26, 2003)

Jay is correct, Marie and Kateri have both been shooting very very well this year. Kateri's world cup results have been amazing so far. Congrats to the both of them and best of luck in the upcoming weekend.


----------



## hoody123 (Aug 11, 2004)

Grey Eagle said:


> At the Spring Classic a qualifier was held to see which 3 women would be sent to Boe to attempt to win a spot for Canada at the Olympics. For a lack of better terminology, a last chance qualifier was being held in Boe for which I believe one or two spots were available to be won by countries not presently holding a spot. Canada was first in line for a spot if one of the countries already holding a spot withdrew from the Olympics. Netherlands did just this at Boe. That gave Canada an Olympic spot. And in the process took Canada out of the qualifier to be held in Boe....... no need to compete now.
> 
> So, the FCA then awarded the OLY spot to Kateri (sp) based upon her performance in Toronto. Ms. Beadet's contention is that the Toronto tournament was not intended to ultimately pick the individual going to China, but only pick the three athletes to compete in the qualifier in Boe. Essentially her contention is that she was only trying to be in the top three, not intent on winning in Toronto.
> 
> It looks like the Arbitrator has sided with her, and I believe a tournament is being held in Peterborough to decide who goes.





dutchy said:


> to elaborate a bit hoody......
> 
> the spring classic/trials weekend has always been used as the tournament to pick the olympic team. Since the Canadian women had not yet qualified for a spot the trials were used as a competition to pick three women that would get the chance to represent Canada in Boe, France to compete for one of a few remaining womens olympic spots.
> 
> ...





dutchy said:


> i guess grey eagle types faster.......:tongue:


Thanks gents! That makes it clear!

While I agree that usually you should shoot your best at all times, if I went into a game thinking that it was sufficient to just place top three, I guess that maybe I wouldn't be giving it my absolute everything. I can sort of sympathise if the rules got changed on you last minute that it would be awefully disheartening....

That said, if I were the one that had top spot in TO and ended up not winning in Peterborough I can't even begin to explain how upset I'd be (Seriously! The elusive Hutnicks would probably come to my house and flail me!)


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

hoody123 said:


> Thanks gents! That makes it clear!
> 
> While I agree that usually you should shoot your best at all times, if I went into a game thinking that it was sufficient to just place top three, I guess that maybe I wouldn't be giving it my absolute everything. I can sort of sympathise if the rules got changed on you last minute that it would be awefully disheartening....
> 
> That said, if I were the one that had top spot in TO and ended up not winning in Peterborough I can't even begin to explain how upset I'd be (Seriously! The elusive Hutnicks would probably come to my house and flail me!)


Not meant as a critical statement, just an observation, I don't know how you would adjust your level of play to a top three mentality. In fact, I don't know how you could be so confident that you could afford to play a little less intense during a competition that you ultimately could easily end up on the outside looking in.

I guess the upside to all of this, is that we are gauranteed that the spot will be filled by the athlete whom is best prepared just before the games 

Good luck to all 3 Ladies.


----------



## cdhunter (Feb 4, 2006)

the part I found most disturbing is how the president of our organization sits on the appeal board I'm not saying that it happened or happens but this gives our organization and old boys club look to it. this needs to be addressed asap and written into our constitution, to prevent this from happening again. As for the girls good luck to all. Right now all the emotions are raw and if the rep for the Olympics changes there is going to be some major screaming some where that the process wasn't fair. I'm not saying that it will be Kateri, club members have been known to protect their own. after this is all over the high performance committee needs to sit down and write out when and where the Olympic qualifiers will be held and not a stop gap in case we don't get a qualifying spot. just my two cents


----------



## hoody123 (Aug 11, 2004)

Grey Eagle said:


> Not meant as a critical statement, just an observation, I don't know how you would adjust your level of play to a top three mentality. In fact, I don't know how you could be so confident that you could afford to play a little less intense during a competition that you ultimately could easily end up on the outside looking in.
> 
> I guess the upside to all of this, is that we are gauranteed that the spot will be filled by the athlete whom is best prepared just before the games
> 
> Good luck to all 3 Ladies.


Having not shot in this particular sort of competition I'm only speculating here: You're pretty much in a forum where you know what all of your competitors scores are correct? If that's the case then you know where you are relative to your competitors - if it's clear that you're in reasonable shape and not in much danger of NOT placing in the top three it would be easy to just shoot off reasonable arrows and not THE BEST ARROW every shot. 

I'm not saying that's what I would do, but I can easily conceive of that being done.



cdhunter said:


> *the part I found most disturbing is how the president of our organization sits on the appeal board* I'm not saying that it happened or happens but this gives our organization and old boys club look to it. this needs to be addressed asap and written into our constitution, to prevent this from happening again. As for the girls good luck to all. Right now all the emotions are raw and if the rep for the Olympics changes there is going to be some major screaming some where that the process wasn't fair. I'm not saying that it will be Kateri, club members have been known to protect their own. after this is all over the high performance committee needs to sit down and write out when and where the Olympic qualifiers will be held and not a stop gap in case we don't get a qualifying spot. just my two cents


I TOTALLY agree with you. When I read this that was definitely one of the first impressions I got from the article. Whether undue influence was placed is irrelevant - the optics are just plain bad here.


----------



## Reed (Jun 18, 2002)

this makes it fairly clear what the trials were ment for

http://www.fca.ca/ex/2008/08Olyselection/08olyselectionprocess.htm

So with no spots for the Oly's the trials were to send people to Boe. SO Katerina was the best Canadain feamle at Boe, so according to above doc. she gets the spot, am I missing somethign here???? IS someone getting bent over????? and if so who is it?????

Did not the same basic thikn happen to Hugh when he got the spot but didn't win the trials, did he take it like a baby?????( I dont know so thats why I am asking)


----------



## Reed (Jun 18, 2002)

dutchy said:


> Kateri won the trials and was nominated, marie piere said she didnt compete to win at the trials but to get top 3 to go to france
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> what a freeking crock of my dogs crap


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

A contentious issue for sure - the FCA's decision-makers dropped the ball on this one. 

The most important thing to remember is that NONE of the 3 women involved are at fault here, and should no be blaming each other.

Marie-Pier did not behave improperly - despite what some people think, she did nothing that athletes in all sorts of other sports do regularly. Track runners often don't go all out in their qualifying heats - they just go fast enough to make the next cut. Pro sports teams don't go all-out once a playoff spot is clinched - out come the second-stringers. She just eased off a bit once she was in.

I feel for Kateri - she thought she was going to the Olympics, but now it's possible she won't be able to go. Kind of like having the rug pulled out.

Racheal kind of gets a bonus chance at this - originally presumed out of the running, she has the most to gain.

Trails are set for the coming weekend in Peterborough. I wonder what system they have planned?


----------



## cdhunter (Feb 4, 2006)

now for the only question that counts at this point,who's brining the black berry to Peterbrough to keep everyone up to date on the scores?


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Stash said:


> A contentious issue for sure - the FCA's decision-makers dropped the ball on this one.
> 
> The most important thing to remember is that NONE of the 3 women involved are at fault here, and should no be blaming each other.
> 
> ...


I have to agree here. You only have to look as far as Frangilli to find examples of world class archers simply posting a number to make an advance. No point wasting skull power to prove essentially nothing.

The FCA went myopic on this got called out by Marie-Pier and now three archers have to pull the freight to make it right. I find it incomprehensible that a firm grasp of the Olympic positioning eluded the organizing body. Some serious review is needed here.

Anybody know if there will be coverage from Peterborough ?


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

Reed said:


> this makes it fairly clear what the trials were ment for
> 
> http://www.fca.ca/ex/2008/08Olyselection/08olyselectionprocess.htm
> So with no spots for the Oly's the trials were to send people to Boe. SO Katerina was the best Canadain feamle at Boe, so according to above doc. she gets the spot, am I missing somethign here???? IS someone getting bent over????? and if so who is it?????
> ...


Hmmmm, interesting read! May just be my interpetation, but it seems pretty clear to me. :zip: Maybe something is lost in the translation to French :tongue: ........ j/k.


----------



## riggs (Nov 22, 2004)

Reed,

The same thing did not remotely happen to Hugh.
FITA and the COC are quite clear. Athletes do not earn spots for themselves, they earn them for their country.

Hugh simply got beat at trials.
And Yes, Hugh has taken it like a man.

For anyone interested in Hugh,
Here is a blog that he is doing on CBCs website.
http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/blog/athletes/hugh_macdonald/victory_away_calamity_at_home_1.html
It is a really good read.

I also wanted to post this item here, so that there is no debate over what was written. Debate the clarity and the intent all you want, but here are the pertinent paragraphs from the team selection document.


_ 15 The trials points from the 70m round, the major event double elimination (if applicable), the Round Robin competition and the Trials Canadian Double Elimination Round will be totaled for each archer to compile an overall ranking list. This list will be the Team Selection Ranking List. The appropriate number of archers, including an alternate in each category, starting with the archer who placed first and working down the list, will be nominated to the Canadian Olympic Committee for membership on the Olympic archery team.



16 The appropriate number of women permitted by FITA to compete in the Final World Qualification Tournament will be selected from the Team Selection Ranking List and if a woman earns an Olympic place at the World Qualification Tournament, that archer will be nominated to the Canadian Olympic Committee for membership on the Olympic archery team._


The FCA is always looking for volunteers to assist in creating documents like this. If any of you that suggested a review are interested please let me know, we would love to have your help.


----------



## Reed (Jun 18, 2002)

riggs said:


> Reed,
> 
> The same thing did not remotely happen to Hugh.
> FITA and the COC are quite clear. Athletes do not earn spots for themselves, they earn them for their country.
> ...


thanks for the link sean, that is a great blog, very well writen and he seems to speak his mind.

Reed


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Grey Eagle said:


> Hmmmm, interesting read! May just be my interpetation, but it seems pretty clear to me. :zip: Maybe something is lost in the translation to French :tongue: ........ j/k.





> the Final World Qualification Tournament in Boe, France in June 23 – 29, 2008. (Note: The maximum number of Olympic places available at the World Qualification Tournament is 5. The maximum number of places a country can earn is 1. Canada has to enter women in the Final World Qualification Tournament and if a woman earns an Olympic place for Canada, that woman will be nominated to the Canadian Olympic Committee for inclusion on the 2008 Olympic team.)


 The problem here is that no body actually _*earned*_ that spot at Boe, it was an unexpected (apparently) gift from The Netherlands. I don't see how anyone could be nominated to the spot based on performance at Boe. The only fair way to settle this is via a competition on Canadian soil to see who can earn the *gifted* spot.


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Actually, the spot was earned based on Canadas ranking at the previous years world championships. Canada was next in line after the Netherlands based on their placings at that event.


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> The problem here is that no body actually _*earned*_ that spot at Boe, it was an unexpected (apparently) gift from The Netherlands. I don't see how anyone could be nominated to the spot based on performance at Boe. The only fair way to settle this is via a competition on Canadian soil to see who can earn the *gifted* spot.


My last post was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. 

Hutty, you are correct, Canada did not earn the spot in Boe. Canada earned that spot as a result of our athletes performances in the World Championships in 2007. Granted, we got it because of the situation with the Netherlands, but the fact remains that the spot was essentially earned in 2007.

As such, would it not then apply that the criteria already in place be used to allocate that spot.

Tough call all around on this. I just hope the controversy and subsequent trials are not too much of a distraction to whomever does get the spot.

Cheers


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2008)

The crux of it is that the FCA set up the criteria, it didn't asume that a spot could become available this is were they went wrong. They should have had something inplace to cover this scenerio since it had happened to Canada a few times in the past. Based on what was published the trials was for money to go to Boe and was for the top 3 so first second or third got the same. Had Canada actually shot for a spot who ever was on top would have been going but since it was gifted no participation was needed. The criteria said that who ever got the spot was to be going but since nobody actually shot for it and since the FCA hadn't had a backup plan we now have another trials. I saw it the same as a the arbitrator, I too was floored to see the FCA President on the appeals board. Yuo can bet there will be provisions for this next time around


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Sean McKenty said:


> The crux of it is that the FCA set up the criteria, it didn't asume that a spot could become available this is were they went wrong. They should have had something inplace to cover this scenerio since it had happened to Canada a few times in the past. Based on what was published the trials was for money to go to Boe and was for the top 3 so first second or third got the same. Had Canada actually shot for a spot who ever was on top would have been going but since it was gifted no participation was needed. The criteria said that who ever got the spot was to be going but since nobody actually shot for it and since the FCA hadn't had a backup plan we now have another trials. I saw it the same as a the arbitrator, I too was floored to see the FCA President on the appeals board. Yuo can bet there will be provisions for this next time around


Dead on Sean. It was a lack of sight on the FCA's part in not trowing in a simple one paragraph clause to cover a reasonably foreseeable event. Look forward to seeing what the new regs for an appeals board turn out to be.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Grey Eagle said:


> My last post was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
> 
> Hutty, you are correct, Canada did not earn the spot in Boe. Canada earned that spot as a result of our athletes performances in the World Championships in 2007. Granted, we got it because of the situation with the Netherlands, but the fact remains that the spot was essentially earned in 2007.
> 
> ...


Didn't mean to imply otherwise Eagle, just thought it might be good to post the actual reg before everything got polarized:d: You just happened to provide the perfect opening.:wink:


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

It was not gifted. It was given to us based on Marie Pieres ranking at the 2007 World Championships in Germany. It isnt like it fell down the chimney, we "won" it based on the criteria set out by the IOC for Olympic selection.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Xs24-7 said:


> It was not gifted. It was given to us based on Marie Pieres ranking at the 2007 World Championships in Germany. It isnt like it fell down the chimney, we "won" it based on the criteria set out by the IOC for Olympic selection.


No it's like it fell out of the Hands of the Dutch:wink:


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2008)

Xs24-7 said:


> It was not gifted. It was given to us based on Marie Pieres ranking at the 2007 World Championships in Germany. It isnt like it fell down the chimney, we "won" it based on the criteria set out by the IOC for Olympic selection.



Marie's score were not enough to gain a spot at the time that is why they had to go to Boe, the IOC/Fita had provisions if a country backed out or was deamed not qualified, the FCA did not. To have a score not high enough to gain a country a spot then suddenly become high enough after another country backed out is about as big a gift as you can get, either way you can bet it will not be left out next time around.


----------



## riggs (Nov 22, 2004)

Just a couple of thoughts. 

First, this scenario wasn't an oversight of the selection committee. It was forseen. The committee believed that section 15 clearly laid out that athletes would be ranked for the Olympic team based on the results of trials. The intent was that this would be the case even if the spots were earned after the trials, just as had been the case in 1996. Clause 16 was to play a role only if there were spots earned in Boe, which there clearly were not. This was not an oversight, however the wording of the document has proven to be unclear.

Secondly,
I strongly believe that the women knew full well that Marie Pierres resulst from worlds could earn Canada a spot after the trials. After the trials document was published, the HPC never received any request for clarification on how this spot would be awarded. If athletes truly anticipated a second trials, why was there never a question raised about where an when? In addittion, if the second trials was anticipated, why is there now a need to refund athletes their expenses to attend this trials as if it was the fault of the FCA?


There was good work done on the trials document. It was approved by the COC Legal council. I understand the lack of clarity, however, the document was posted numerous times in a state that asked for feedback. No one cared enough to give it at the time.


----------



## news (Jul 18, 2008)

*Trial*

Tentative Schedule for trials held in Peterborough at 
Peterborough Fish & Game Association
608 Division Road
Peterborough, Ontario

Friday, July 18
Practice - 4 - 7pm 

Saturday, July 19
9:15 am - practice
10:00 am - 70m round 
12:30 - 1:30 - lunch - food NOT supplied on field
1:30 - 2 - practice 
2:00 - 4:30 - Round Robin. 

Sunday, July 20
9:15 am - practice
10:00 - 12:00 - CDE


----------



## news (Jul 18, 2008)

*Links to articles:*

<<http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/News/Etobicoke/article/52031>>

<<http://www.mediamatinquebec.com/?Section=Categorie&id=11021&Categorie=Sports>>

<<http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/archery/story/2008/07/10/arbitration-shootout.html>>

<<http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/archery/story/2008/07/02/f-olympics-archery-appeal-response.html>>

<<http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/archery/story/2008/07/02/f-olympics-archery-appeal-response.html>>


----------



## news (Jul 18, 2008)

*History*

1. "FITA Olympic Qualifying Document" was posted April 2007 at
<<http://www.fca.ca/ex/2007/FITA%20beijing%20archery_details.pdf>>

On page 4, 3rd paragraph "Reallocation of unused quota positions".


2. "Team Selection Process - 2008 Olympic Games" was posted May 2008. 

Paragraph 8 refers back to the document mentioned above. 
<<http://www.fca.ca/ex/2008/08Olyselection/08olyselectionprocess.htm>>


----------



## Pete731 (Aug 9, 2002)

news said:


> 1. "FITA Olympic Qualifying Document" was posted April 2007 at
> <<http://www.fca.ca/ex/2007/FITA%20beijing%20archery_details.pdf>>
> 
> On page 4, 3rd paragraph "Reallocation of unused quota positions".
> ...


Interesting first 3 posts .....


----------



## news (Jul 18, 2008)

*Sorry, only 3 archers competing at the trials:*

Beaudet, Marie Pier
Savage, Racheal
Vrakking, Kateri

So, no pressure...:darkbeer:


----------



## dutchy (Mar 21, 2004)

good luck ladies!!!!!

will their be anyone from peterborough going to watch parts of the trials? some scores would be nice....


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

news said:


> And now it's back to normal. Strange. :darkbeer:


I would suspect that it has something to do with your browsers spell check, or editing features. It may show up red in an edit as it is an unknown word and would appear normal upon posting.

I haven't edited a post on this thread yet, although the mention of fecal matter above is leaning on my patience.:wink:

Hunticks


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I've been asked to act as Chairman of the Appeals Jury for Saturday, so I'll be there for the first day - I don't have a portable but I'll post any results as soon as I get home in the evening. Tim Watts will be Chairman for Sunday.
(I really hope there will be _need_ for me to be there) :wink:


The basics of the system, in case anyone is interested but hasn't read the info on the FCA website, is as follows:


*Saturday:*
_Qualifying round_: 
72 arrows @ 70M
1st - 10 points
2nd - 8
3rd - 6

Up to 20 bonus points can be earned with exceptionally high scores in the qualifying round. See the website for the numbers.

_Round Robin_: 
12 arrows matches, each archer will face each other archer twice.
Winner - 2 points + 4 bonus points, maximum possible 24 points (4 matches)
Loser - 0 points + 3 bonus points. See the website for the reason.

*Sunday:*
_Double elimination_ (like the Ontario Spring Classic)
1st - 35 points
2nd - 30 
3rd - 25


Total trials points over the 2 days will determine the winner. 

It's quite possible that the team member may be selected by Saturday. If Archer A wins the qualifying round and all 4 of her matches, and the other 2 archers split their matches evenly, then Archer A will have an 11 point lead over the next competitor and the Sunday shooting is moot. A high qualifying round score will add to that point margin.



Please: Let's not argue about the good or bad things about this system on this thread - it's a done deal.


----------



## pintojk (Jan 31, 2003)

thanks for the update Stash :thumb:

can you please answer this for us "elim newbies" will the winner of this shootoff be representing us in Bejing ???


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Stash said:


> I've been asked to act as Chairman of the Appeals Jury for Saturday, so I'll be there for the first day - I don't have a portable but I'll post any results as soon as I get home in the evening. Tim Watts will be Chairman for Sunday.
> (I really hope there will be _need_ for me to be there) :wink:
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent. Is there any way someone could give the local cable station a shout and maybe get some coverage. On occasion they will do this and even cut a DVD to be used on a web site for promotion.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

pintojk said:


> thanks for the update Stash :thumb:
> 
> can you please answer this for us "elim newbies" will the winner of this shootoff be representing us in Bejing ???



Yes. The person with the highest total "trials points" will be the Olympic team member. 

Since the final Canadian Olympic team members have to be named immediately (I think Monday is the deadline), there will be no further changes.

With only 3 people shooting, the point system has a few flaws and loopholes, which I sincerely hope will not be an issue in selecting the best qualified archer.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Excellent. Is there any way someone could give the local cable station a shout and maybe get some coverage. On occasion they will do this and even cut a DVD to be used on a web site for promotion.


Yeah, go ahead and do that will ya? 

I'm pretty much certain that the FCA people and whoever is actually running this thing on such short notice are on a bit of a tight string right now, and extra last-minute chores just aren't in the books at this moment.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Stash said:


> Yeah, go ahead and do that will ya?
> 
> I'm pretty much certain that the FCA people and whoever is actually running this thing on such short notice are on a bit of a tight string right now, and extra last-minute chores just aren't in the books at this moment.


Anyone know the name of the local station out there? I haven't been to Peterborough in a million years but I'd be more than happy to shoot em off an email or give em a call to let them know the where and when.


----------



## hoody123 (Aug 11, 2004)

Hutnicks said:


> Anyone know the name of the local station out there? I haven't been to Peterborough in a million years but I'd be more than happy to shoot em off an email or give em a call to let them know the where and when.


http://www.chextv.com/


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

hoody123 said:


> http://www.chextv.com/


Thanks Hoody,:thumbs_up can always trust a fellow Comp geek to dig out the info. Have no idea where my mind went that I could not remember chex (hated the cereal as a kid so there may be a block there).

The email addy is.

[email protected]

So anyone who wants, should drop em an email requesting coverage.


----------



## pintojk (Jan 31, 2003)

Stash said:


> Yes. The person with the highest total "trials points" will be the Olympic team member.


that's where I'm confused :embara: ..... if lets say Rachael wins the shootoff tomorrow ..... will she be going to Bejing, or is it like a total score of a bunch of qualifiers that will determine who goes 

BTW good luck to all the ladies :becky:


----------



## JDoupe (Dec 9, 2006)

Good luck to all involved!...well, just the shooters really. The rest of them can lay in the bed that they have made (and a messy one at that).


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

OK, pinto, I'll type this slowly so you can follow along... :wink:

Yes, whoever wins this Trials this coming weekend will be named to the Olympic Team as the sole female archer. The Trials consists of the qualifying round PLUS the round-robin PLUS the elimination.

So, yes, if Rae ends the weekend with more points than Kateri or Marie-Pier, then she will be going.


----------



## Miss Pink (Nov 5, 2007)

Stash said:


> OK, pinto, I'll type this slowly so you can follow along... :wink:



LMAFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rofl:


----------



## pintojk (Jan 31, 2003)

*unofficial results so far .....*

just got off the phone and here goes .....

End of first 70M Qualifier

Marie 631 - 12 Trials points
Kateri 641 - 20 Trials points
Rachael 613 - 6 Trials points

great shooting ladies :thumb:


----------



## pintojk (Jan 31, 2003)

Stash said:


> OK, pinto, I'll type this slowly so you can follow along... :wink:
> 
> Yes, whoever wins this Trials this coming weekend will be named to the Olympic Team as the sole female archer. The Trials consists of the qualifying round PLUS the round-robin PLUS the elimination.
> 
> So, yes, if Rae ends the weekend with more points than Kateri or Marie-Pier, then she will be going.


thank you Stash ..... all this Oly stuff can be confusing at times :embara:

and for you Miss Pink :zip:


----------

