66 Swimmers Named For British Funding But Axe Falls For Jamieson, Pavoni, Barrett

Michael Jamieson, by Patrick B. Kraemer

Several of those who have excelled for Britain and home countries in international waters in the past three seasons, including Olympic silver medallist Michael Jamieson, European double bronze medallist Roberto Pavoni and Commonwealth and European medley relay champion Adam Barrett, have been dropped from the list of funded athletes on the way to the Rio 2016 Olympic Games

All SwimVortex articles are placed in our archive after five days, the library of content available to subscribers.
Log In Register

Several of those who have excelled for Britain and home countries in international waters in the past three seasons, including Olympic silver medallist Michael Jamieson, European double bronze medallist Roberto Pavoni and Commonwealth and European medley relay champion Adam Barrett, have been dropped from the list of funded athletes on the way to the Rio 2016 Olympic Games

Comments

felix

Very hard to see Jamieson making Rio so that’s fair enough, Pavoni and Barrett certainly not medal potential but neither are the male backstrokers Walker and Tancock so I would imagine they feel hard done by…thats a very impressive list though, goes to show where they are now compared to this time 4 years ago she those lists would’ve been very small

gheko

Yes but walker and tancock both made the finals in Kazan so that must of carried some weight!

commonwombat

The Podium APA list is, actually, “padded out” by the inclusion of the 4×200 relay.

Pavoni was a 400IM finalist in Kazan, so he can have reasons to feel aggrieved. He may not be “medal potential”, but could you say that about the likes of Proud or Quigley who made the list ?

MP

Craig, Roberto Pavoni is not a double Bronze Medalist at Euros. He won Silver and Bronze. And you are correct Commonwombat. Pavoni is WC Finalist in Kazan. Gheko, please get your facts right befor publishing your comments. Thank you

Craig Lord

Thanks MP. Corrected

gheko

MP – I was responding to felix

Craig Lord

All, no need to make comments personal. Thanks. Gheko, what MP meant was that those swimmers made finals as did Roberto Pavoni (and world ranking not significantly different) so hard to argue the difference in thumbs up, thumbs down.

MP

Thanks al lot as always, Craig.
Criteria for A funding was to make a final in Kazan. But alas, in the case of you know who, that wasn’t enough for the second year running. Only swimmer to my knowledge to be left out. 22 places promised, only 21 filled.

MP

I forgot to mention that he wasn’t dropped. He had already been dropped last year. Not worthy of it. As opposed to everyone else.

MP

66 swimmers got funding, including so many who will struggle to even make the team, let alone win medals. One swimmer who was one of only 9 to make the team for Kazan outright, didn’t get into those 66.
Those who made this decision are sleeping well as always tonight. That swimmer will not have the same peaceful night as them.

Craig Lord

MP – quite so – poor decision, poor outcome, not justifiable in the context of others on the list

commonwombat

I think part of the issue here is one of “optics” and even “timing”.

I see no issue with having a “Podium” program via the wider British APA scheme. Nor with APA funding for the longer term (2020) prospects.

However, giving them similar naming AND making a joint announcement probably was NOT the way to go.

One could see the situation of “why didn’t I get Podium funding when they’re giving it to kid X/Y/Z who’s an age-grouper ?”

May have been wiser to rename the 2020 program AND announce it separately.

CharlesB

Pavoni should appeal.

felix

Paving should swim faster

felix

Pavoni silly I pad

MP

Thanks for the advice, Felix. I shall pass it on to him and hopefully he will do that. By the way, any tips?

MP

Thanks a lot Craig for your support. Always.

MP

Thanks a lot, CharlesB

CharlesB

So if Pavoni had swum 0.09 seconds faster and made the 200IM final as well as being 7th in the 400IM final that would still not have been good enough!? Processes of selection should be transparent, reasonable and fair and give the benefit of the doubt to the participant.

MP

Actually, CharlesB, he came joint 8th in the semis, so the difference is not 0.09 in the swim-off, but rather 0.01 in the semis. But anyway, no, that would not have been enough. Gold might have been, but not sure of that either…

Leave a comment

Post a comment with your SwimVortex Account. Don't have a SwimVortex Account, Sign Up?

(*) Fields are required!
×