ARE TOO MANY DESERVING STARS denied the chance to compete in the World Championships and\/or Olympic Games by the only-3-per-nation rule? That\u2019s a question that gets asked over and over on our online forum, and also pops up frequently in letters to the editor (see p. 45 of this issue for the latest).<\/p>\n
While I\u2019d like to see more of the world\u2019s top athletes in the big meets, I just don\u2019t see it ever happening. But first-off, let\u2019s just accept the fact that any change to the Olympics is completely off the table. That is a gathering that\u2019s all about the brotherhood of man, etc., etc.<\/p>\n
But what about the Worlds, where the IAAF can make the rules, unencumbered by the antediluvian-thinking IOC? Surely opening the doors to more people is an easy thing to do, right? Wrong.<\/p>\n
Unless you were a geography major, you probably can\u2019t identify the 212 (that\u2019s 20 more than the United Nations has!) member nations of the IAAF. And each of them gets a vote. Even if you\u2019re a flyspeck in the middle of some ocean\u2014and we apologize here if we appear flyspeckist\u2014your vote counts as much as anyone else.<\/p>\n
So if the IAAF said, \u201cLet\u2019s open the WC door to everyone who meets the A-standard,\u201d the flyspeckian reaction would be a strongly negative one. The \u201csmall nations\u201d (and that starts after the first couple of dozen or so) get their WC pleasure not so much from winners, or medalists, or even finalists; no, from semifinalists. Or those who \u201calmost\u201d made the cut in the field-event qualifying. What happens if you allow the big-population nations to have unlimited entries? Their chances in each category are severely reduced. Why would anybody vote for such self-annihilation? They wouldn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
And there are practical considerations that go unconsidered. If you allowed all the A-standard people in the meet, regardless of number-per-nation, you would basically eliminate the B-standard people. That would wipe out many nations entirely. And before you say, \u201cWell, make the A-standard easier,\u201d that then means that you have to allow so many people in the meet that the number becomes unmanageable. Similarly, making the A-standard tougher also eliminates the leading lights of many countries.<\/p>\n
In the interest of smoothing the meet\/protecting the athletes the IAAF just went out of its way to eliminate the first round of the 100; a switch to letting \u201ceverybody\u201d in would mean that even four rounds would become too bulky. And the field-event qualifying rounds would be impossible to run.<\/p>\n
Then there\u2019s the matter of financing monster-sized teams. Would USATF\u2014or any other federation\u2014really want to be funding the participation of the 20th-rated sprinter in the world just so he\/she could maybe make it to the semifinals?<\/p>\n
The biggest problem, perhaps, comes in terms of trying to sell the meet to the public. While hardcore track fans might wax orgasmic over the thought of having \u201call the world\u2019s best\u201d in the event, would the ticket-buying\/TV-viewing public really be thrilled at one-nation domination (the most powerful example being the Kenyan men\u2019s domination of the marathon, followed by the steeplechase)? I\u2019m pretty sure the answer is no.<\/p>\n
The only answer, I think, is more \u201cwild cards,\u201d based on special achievement, to add just a few more people to the meet.<\/p>\n