PDA

View Full Version : Guess the Wildcards



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

jimcrawfurd
-25th April 2012, 20:16
I hope this isn't in poor taste, but now that we know who has qualified by right, I surely can't be the only one wondering who our esteemed leaders will deem worthy of a wildcard?
My guess - 2 more for MF and WF to give full teams of 3 (as far as I can see, only 3 fencers per weapon are allowed -there seems to be a system for reserves who don't officially count in the numbers), which leaves 4 more wildcards - one each across the other 4 weapons? a full team of 3 in another weapon?
Answers on a postcard to BF HQ...

hokers
-25th April 2012, 21:35
I hope this isn't in poor taste, but now that we know who has qualified by right, I surely can't be the only one wondering who our esteemed leaders will deem worthy of a wildcard?
My guess - 2 more for MF and WF to give full teams of 3 (as far as I can see, only 3 fencers per weapon are allowed -there seems to be a system for reserves who don't officially count in the numbers), which leaves 4 more wildcards - one each across the other 4 weapons? a full team of 3 in another weapon?
Answers on a postcard to BF HQ...

We've been speculating about this already in the zonals thread, but I believe there are still A grades before any BOA selection deadline. One last chance for a few people to make their case perhaps?

jimcrawfurd
-26th April 2012, 06:49
Thanks Hokers - A-grades at all weapons, or just a few? Looking at form/rankings/recent BF news, they might decide on a WE team, though WS would have been the obvious choice :(.
That would leave one wildcard across ME,MS and WS - my guess would be Louise if fit, since she didn't have the chance to take up her place at the zonal.
If no WE team then perhaps Corinna, James and 2 at WS?

madfencer
-26th April 2012, 22:52
IMHO Corinna and Jojo fully deserve wildcards with their results at the Zonals (corinna getting bronze but needing to finish in top 2) and jojo finishing in the 8 and only losing 15:13 but needing to make the semi finals). Honeybone may get another wildcard with his result, and also BF may choose to select young-blood for 2016 hopes which may count in his favour.

Mini
-4th May 2012, 12:03
Alex Tofalides has been given a wild card today I believe. Any news on who else has recieved one? :)

hokers
-4th May 2012, 12:19
Alex Tofalides has been given a wild card today I believe. Any news on who else has recieved one? :)

That would be a HUGE surprise if he had. Don't think many people were betting on him for third MF spot.

wingnutLP
-4th May 2012, 12:42
I saw both richard and rabbit yesterday and they didn't think the decision was particurlaly iminent. There are still events to come so BF would be nuts to select now. I am not sure where you got that info from but I am certain it is wrong.

Alex

wingnutLP
-4th May 2012, 12:46
Rank

Pts
Name
Nationality
Date of birth
Season


15
96
KRUSE Richard
GBR
30.07.83
2011/2012


40
41
DAVIS James
GBR
03.07.91
2011/2012


52
30
HALSTED Laurence
GBR
22.05.84
2011/2012


56
27
KENBER Jamie
GBR
14.11.86
2011/2012


86
15
ROSOWSKY Husayn
GBR
10.04.91
2011/2012


118
11
JEFFERIES Edward
GBR
13.02.89
2011/2012


119
10
COOK Keith
GBR
19.01.81
2011/2012


179
3
TOFALIDES Alex
GBR
13.03.93
2011/2012


208
2
MEPSTEAD Marcus
GBR
11.05.90
2011/2012


229
1
MELIA Rhys
GBR
11.04.90
2011/2012


235
0
PEGGS Ben
GBR
21.10.90
2011/2012

J4G
-4th May 2012, 13:20
That would be a HUGE surprise if he had

Not only a surprise, but also ridiculous...surely?

Hansei
-4th May 2012, 13:37
Not only a surprise, but also ridiculous...surely?

No more ridiculous than sending PM - and that's been seriously discussed on here. In fact, there are certain similarities. (Fencing-wise that is; obviously both very different as people)

Gav
-4th May 2012, 13:52
I saw both richard and rabbit yesterday and they didn't think the decision was particurlaly iminent. There are still events to come so BF would be nuts to select now. I am not sure where you got that info from but I am certain it is wrong.

Alex

Not til after Seoul I think.

J4G
-4th May 2012, 14:07
No more ridiculous than sending PM - and that's been seriously discussed on here. In fact, there are certain similarities

One key difference is that Philip Marsh has been junior world champion, is the current senior national champion and British #2 with only Jon Willis above him. Alex T may have had some good results on the junior circuit and has definitely started to make some good senior results, including 1 L64. MF has greater strength in depth and, if you were to argue in favour of Toffy, you could make much more convincing arguments for others ranked above him.


obviously both very different as people

Haha couldn't agree more

Fencer91
-4th May 2012, 14:44
Toffy going on the team would mean that all those who took part in the test event had either been dismissed in favour of him or that they'd turned it down along with all the others ranked above him. The notion that he would make the senior team for this year is beyond ridiculous.

Ronald Velden
-4th May 2012, 14:49
My understanding is that selections for individual discretionary places need to be made next week. Therefore
this weekend's A Grades are the last to be considered.

I don't know if that would apply to mens and womens foil if selected as a team.

Assuming both are selected I assume that 2 of remaining discretionary individual places will be allocated to Jon Willis and Corinne Lawrence in mens and womens epee.

Sabre is more complicated. Alex O'Connell has produced a last 32 and 64 in last 2 World Cups in mens sabre
and I believe has made a top 50 world ranking in last 2 years, which is one of criteria for selection. James
Honeybone has produced poor results in 2012 and has not made a top 50 ranking. He would need to justify place on being prospect for 2016.

Womens sabre is more complex. There are 4 potential candidates in Bond-Williams, Nicholl and Hutchinson who have made top 50 rankings in last 2 years plus Sophie Williams who would meet 2016 criteria. Bond-Williams is apparently injured. It may come down to who performs at this weekend's World Cup in Bologna.

Fencer91
-4th May 2012, 15:09
As a complete guess what do people think of the following Mens Foil team as being the most likely selection:

Kruse, Davis, Kenber. Reserve - Halstead (picked as reserve due to only just coming back from injury but his experience on a team with Kruse is valuable)

Gav
-4th May 2012, 15:19
I couldn't think where else to put this but (randomly) I came across this on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_-_Qualification

miraberis
-4th May 2012, 15:31
I couldn't think where else to put this but (randomly) I came across this on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_-_Qualification

Gav, that's absolutely fantastic!

Gav
-4th May 2012, 15:58
Gav, that's absolutely fantastic!

If it's accurate! (Interesting though eh?)

Vicomte_de_Bragelonne
-4th May 2012, 16:05
This is from the Olympic Selection policy document on the BF website
As an
individual, a fencer must have been ranked in the top 50 of the world rankings at some time between 1st April 2010 and 9th May 2012; (this latter date may be changed in the light of the calendar as published by the FIE for next season), or they must be in the top 45 of the world ranking on 1st April 2012 amended to contain only those fencers eligible for the Olympic Games. [i.e. only 2 fencers per nation, or 3 where teams have qualified, are left in].

b. For a team to be eligible for selection it must have been ranked in the top 75% of the world ranking based on the number of teams taking part in the 2011 World Championships at the relevant weapon, rounded to the nearest whole number with 0.5 being rounded up at some time between 1
st April 2010 and 9th May 2012 . For instance if 20 teams take part in the World Championships in 2011, then the team must be in the top15 of the World rankings at some time in the relevant period.

Given the point about the calendar and also the fact that final nomination by the BOA to IOC is 8th July, I would expect results from MF Korea and other A grades that weekend to be included in the decision process.

I'd agree with fencer91 on MF team with Halsted replaced by Rosowsky if form & fitness prove to be an issue

Hansei
-4th May 2012, 16:24
One key difference is that Philip Marsh has been junior world champion, is the current senior national champion and British #2 with only Jon Willis above him. Alex T may have had some good results on the junior circuit and has definitely started to make some good senior results, including 1 L64. MF has greater strength in depth and, if you were to argue in favour of Toffy, you could make much more convincing arguments for others ranked above him.



Haha couldn't agree more

True, PM was Junior World Champion. Unfortunately he had a disappointing tournament this year (very recently), where as Alex's was much stronger. I personally don't think your domestic ranking is of any great importance, nor your result at the National Champs - the domestic circuit is merely part of the selection process for fencing in internationals; I think it has very little relevance to your ability to fence foreign fencers. PM has also only made 1 L64, demonstrating some excellent poule fencing, but only winning 1 DE fight (at a senior international) all season. The olympics is only DEs.

I'm sure you could make more convincing arguments for others, I certainly wasn't trying to come across as a proponent of AT (I think it would be great to see PM go); rather I only hoped to suggest that the rumour wasn't that ridiculous in the context of previous discussions.

Fencer91
-4th May 2012, 17:49
This is from the Olympic Selection policy document on the BF website
As an
individual, a fencer must have been ranked in the top 50 of the world rankings at some time between 1st April 2010 and 9th May 2012; (this latter date may be changed in the light of the calendar as published by the FIE for next season), or they must be in the top 45 of the world ranking on 1st April 2012 amended to contain only those fencers eligible for the Olympic Games. [i.e. only 2 fencers per nation, or 3 where teams have qualified, are left in].


Given the point about the calendar and also the fact that final nomination by the BOA to IOC is 8th July, I would expect results from MF Korea and other A grades that weekend to be included in the decision process.

I'd agree with fencer91 on MF team with Halsted replaced by Rosowsky if form & fitness prove to be an issue


So on that basis then Rosowsky can't be selected as the reserve? Or have i misunderstood?

Vicomte_de_Bragelonne
-4th May 2012, 21:44
So on that basis then Rosowsky can't be selected as the reserve? Or have i misunderstood?

He could be but if fitness and form are okay then on experience & top 50 criteria I'd expect Halsted to get the nod. Any doubt on these then Rosowsky based on 2016 potential (& recent form).

Vicomte_de_Bragelonne
-4th May 2012, 21:56
To be clear, I expect Kruse, Davis & Kenber to be the team picks with reserve as per previous comment. (although I heard Kenber was injured which was why he was not in Japan)

Fencer91
-4th May 2012, 22:49
Ok so you dont have to be in the top 50 to make the team its just an extra criteria to meet if theres more than one person vying for the position correct? I heard that too but i suspect its just a minor inflamation of his old knee injury (fingers crossed)

tigger
-5th May 2012, 20:51
In case anyone's interested in the actual facts, no selections have been for Home Nation places, and none will be made til after this weekend's events!

jimcrawfurd
-5th May 2012, 21:09
"I assume that 2 of remaining discretionary individual places will be allocated to Jon Willis and Corinne Lawrence in mens and womens epee." - Ronald Velden

Although I was firmly rooting for Jon in his appeal over the world champs selection, I think his recent results, including at the zonal qualifiers, puts him further down the pecking order than any of the 4 women's sabreurs you mention.

My predictions for the 8 wildcards (based purely on personal opinion/ FIE rankings/ recent form, with no inside information or insight into the workings of our glorious leaders' minds):
MF - Davis and either Halstead or Kenber, depending on fitness (with the other as reserve for team, or Rosowsky if either is genuinely unable to compete) - bit harsh on Jeffries who has been a stalwart of the team and put in a key performance in the Olympic Test Event final, but he seems too far adrift on the current FIE rankings.
WF - Emmanuel and Bentley (Troiano as reserve)
WE - Lawrence
MS - Honeybone
WS - Hutchinson and Bond-Williams (if fit - Sophie Williams otherwise, on basis of "future potential")

Having just seen Tweet about Mary Cohen's L16 in Rio, have checked the rankings/policy - she wouldn't meet the published criteria for an individual wild card, but it might be enough to justify a WE team of Lawrence, Usher and Cohen, in which case Honeybone and Bond-Williams would miss out.

Time will no doubt prove me hopelessly wrong...

Anyone else willing to stick their neck out and make a prediction at this stage?

fa266
-11th May 2012, 09:29
any idea what time today the selections will be announced?

cesh_fencing
-11th May 2012, 11:00
"Although I was firmly rooting for Jon in his appeal over the world champs selection, I think his recent results, including at the zonal qualifiers, puts him further down the pecking order than any of the 4 women's sabreurs you mention.

However at least he actually won a top grade World Cup in his career and that was after only 1*L32 and 2*L64 at preceeding European based World Cups (and generally those were smaller than the events this Olympic qualification cycle) which is not that far away from his recent form (one fight at each event out). Cannot think of anyone else on the 'wildcard' list with that pedigree of exceeding expectations to this level and the Olympics should put all sorts of pressures on the opposition which Jon can exploit.

In terms of chances of a medal, Jon I would suggest has a better chance than any of the Sabreurs, purely because Mens Epee is far more un-pradictical than sabre where the top fencers nearly always win at important events and with entry numbers for all weapons far closer it means only a run of 3 fights gets you into the L8, rather than the usual 6 or 7 for mens epee.

Yes he may bounce out in his first fight (once we get a full tableux round), but any of our wildcards are arguably going to get an awful draw due to their world rankings, however if Jon gets on a run he has a proven past of actually going all the way at the highest level..

I have had my issues with Jon in the past, however it would be a travesty if he is not selected as he does deserve the opportunity..

Fingers crossed on his behalf....

edge
-11th May 2012, 12:25
Given Jon's facebook status it is a sad day for Mens Epee:(

Cyrano5
-11th May 2012, 12:37
indeed

Fencer91
-11th May 2012, 13:11
Does anyone know if when BF have made the selections they will explain their choices? e.g. X has had better results than Y/less prone to injury and whether they think different people/teams have better medal chances

hokers
-11th May 2012, 13:34
Does anyone know if when BF have made the selections they will explain their choices? e.g. X has had better results than Y/less prone to injury and whether they think different people/teams have better medal chances

I would suggest it was a little unlikely.

Is there an appeal process, does anyone know?

Anyone know more of the list?

fenderstrat
-11th May 2012, 13:35
Very, very sad.

J4G
-11th May 2012, 13:46
Have ANY selections been made?

Gav
-11th May 2012, 13:59
Have ANY selections been made?


As I understand it, nothing will be announced officially till after Seoul.

Mr WFFC
-11th May 2012, 14:15
Jon was clearly expecting to hear officially today. Does that mean Jon thinks he hasn't been selected because he hasn't heard anything? In which case perhaps there is still a chance for him.

LouiseH
-11th May 2012, 14:18
I was under the impression all the indiviual selections have been made and the fencers going have been told this morning. The decision on which teams are going has also been decided but the individuals in the teams are going to be chosen at a later date....I think!

I'm not sure when the list is going to be published though, it probably has to go through the BOA.

Lefty Foilist
-11th May 2012, 14:27
Official announcement on Monday?

M'son
-11th May 2012, 14:37
I understand Jon has tweeted that it is the worst day of his life and he is now looking for a job
Strongly suggests he didn't make it if this is true.
If it is true it is more than a sad day for epee as Jon would have translated his Olympic experience into effective training for future generations.
I do so hope we don't lose him from the sport.

LouiseH
-11th May 2012, 14:46
Jon was clearly expecting to hear officially today. Does that mean Jon thinks he hasn't been selected because he hasn't heard anything? In which case perhaps there is still a chance for him.

He has heard something....he hasn't been selected :(

Peter Pan
-11th May 2012, 14:48
I think it's unlikely we will hear anything official for some time - this is from the selection document:

"16. All fencers in contention will be notified of the decisions reached, as soon as possible after the selection meeting which shall be within 7 days of the cut-off date in section 11. No athlete shall be permitted to make any announcements to the media or general public in any form whatsoever including any announcement on any social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook of their possible or confirmed selection or non-selection prior to official announcement by the BOA of such selection or non-selection."

The uncertainty could last until the Delegation Registration Meeting on June 8th

BigPappaBear
-11th May 2012, 15:55
That's a fairly unrealistic expectation on behalf of hte selection document, that people are not going to tweet or facebook such things.

Lefty Foilist
-11th May 2012, 16:22
That's a fairly unrealistic expectation on behalf of hte selection document, that people are not going to tweet or facebook such things.

Indeed, especially if they haven't been selected: what more would they have to lose? Whatever punishment dealt out by BF for that would pale in comparison to the pain of not being selected, so it's pointless.

Highlander
-11th May 2012, 17:42
Is Jon in Stockholm this weekend?

Foilling Around
-11th May 2012, 17:44
Is Jon in Stockholm this weekend?

Yes, so let's hope he wins and then appeals!

Highlander
-11th May 2012, 18:45
Yes, so let's hope he wins and then appeals!

Let's hope he appeals regardless of his result but a good result here would help.

rpryer
-11th May 2012, 20:53
Yes, so let's hope he wins and then appeals!

The selection rules specifically don't allow any appeal about the discretionary aspects of the selection, only if the information provided to the Selectors was wrong, or if the process wasn't followed.

The Driver
-12th May 2012, 08:40
Yes, so let's hope he wins and then appeals!

Unfortunately V1/D5 in poules - understandable

Fencer91
-19th May 2012, 13:37
Hhhmmm the results in Seoul are interesting not sure Halstead will make the team anymore. Will be interesting to see who is selected Men's foil is without a doubt going to have appeals made

rpryer
-19th May 2012, 13:57
Hhhmmm the results in Seoul are interesting not sure Halstead will make the team anymore. Will be interesting to see who is selected Men's foil is without a doubt going to have appeals made

The selections were made last week, so the Seoul results won't matter. There can be no appeals against the discretionary aspects of the selections.

Fencer91
-19th May 2012, 14:01
the individuals not participating in the team event were chosen last week i.e. weapons like mens womens sabre but teams have not been picked. At least thats what others have been saying and they were waiting on Seoul to determine the 3rd place spot for the foil team so yes they do matter

J4G
-19th May 2012, 14:01
The selections were made last week, so the Seoul results won't matter. There can be no appeals against the discretionary aspects of the selections.

The selections for all weapons besides men's foil were made. MF would be after this weekend

rpryer
-19th May 2012, 15:09
The selections for all weapons besides men's foil were made. MF would be after this weekend

Reading Alex Newton's statement again (http://www.fencingforum.com/forum/showthread.php?16624-Selection-of-Olympic-Athletes), those who will be fencing in the individual event have already been selected, it is only any additional places in the team event that are outstanding.

And the point about no appeals against discretionary selections still stands.

Fencer91
-19th May 2012, 17:06
correct but that is individuals not in entered in a team event. The fencers that are nominated in the team event will fence in the individuals too (excluding the substitute) the team itself was not selected before Seoul and therefore neither were the indibviduals

Fencer91
-19th May 2012, 17:09
also if a fencer is picked and it makes no sense why they are picked ie others have achieved better results than them this year then the process obviously would have been followed and therefore an appeal can be made. My point was nearly all of them have had good results this year. Besides theres nothing to say that you can't make an actual appeal just whether it is legitimately founded or not

rpryer
-19th May 2012, 17:30
also if a fencer is picked and it makes no sense why they are picked ie others have achieved better results than them this year then the process obviously would have been followed and therefore an appeal can be made. My point was nearly all of them have had good results this year. Besides theres nothing to say that you can't make an actual appeal just whether it is legitimately founded or not

No. The process refers to the provision of information to the selectors and the notification provisions etc. It specifically does not include the decision that fencer A is selected over fencer B by the selectors exercising their judgement. That is part of the selectors' discretion and cannot be appealed under the selection rules. Any appeal submitted on that basis would not succeed.

Fencer91
-19th May 2012, 18:56
my original point was that i thought there would be several appeals from this weapon. I didnt say whether they would be successful or not

rpryer
-20th May 2012, 09:06
And mine was that we won't as it has been made clear that appeals about the selectors' discretion will fail, and therefore people won't make them.

jimcrawfurd
-20th May 2012, 20:38
Does anyone know who was in the MF team in Seoul today? Pretty impressive result, so my guess would be that selectors might well pick the same team for the Olympics.

rpryer
-20th May 2012, 20:42
From the Seoul WC thread:

vs UKR


Rk, jd, hr

Then


RK LH JD for Germany HR reserve

munkey
-20th May 2012, 22:18
The selections for all weapons besides men's foil were made. MF would be after this weekend

Not sure that's true. If another team besides Men's Foil is being selected (perhaps WF or WE) then the composition of that team won't be made until this week. There's quite a strong case for choosing to have another team (more medal opportunity) and there's certainly been more support and encouragement for the women's foilists since Alex Newton arrived. So here's my best guess for the GB team for the Olympics:

MF Team: Kruse, Davis, Halstead (reserve: Rosowsky)
WF Team: Shepperd, Emmanuel, Bentley (reserve: Bennett)
ME: Marsh
WE: Lawrence
MS: Honeybone
WS: Hutchison

Plenty of room for debate and discussion there I would think!:eekk2:

Fencer91
-20th May 2012, 22:39
No way Halstead should be on that team as anything but reserve and even that is questionable

J4G
-20th May 2012, 23:36
No way Halstead should be on that team as anything but reserve and even that is questionable

Agreed

Jacdaw
-21st May 2012, 07:17
MF Team: Kruse, Davis, Rosowsky (reserve: Cook or Halstead?)

Jacdaw
-21st May 2012, 07:27
MF Team: Kruse, Davis, Rosowsky (reserve: Cook or Halstead?)

Reserve could even be Jefferies or Melia
Give them some practise

Vicomte_de_Bragelonne
-21st May 2012, 07:50
Not sure that's true. If another team besides Men's Foil is being selected (perhaps WF or WE) then the composition of that team won't be made until this week. There's quite a strong case for choosing to have another team (more medal opportunity) and there's certainly been more support and encouragement for the women's foilists since Alex Newton arrived. So here's my best guess for the GB team for the Olympics:MF Team: Kruse, Davis, Halstead (reserve: Rosowsky)WF Team: Shepperd, Emmanuel, Bentley (reserve: Bennett)ME: MarshWE: LawrenceMS: HoneyboneWS: HutchisonPlenty of room for debate and discussion there I would think!:eekk2:All the noises from the PM would suggest a WFT.Agree mostly with Munkey except Rosowsky in, Halsted reserve and Troiano instead of Bennett as WFT reserve based on WR and results. Can't argue with the rest.

Fencer91
-21st May 2012, 09:15
MF team should be: RK, JD, JK. Reserve Rosowsky. Halstead has done nothing this year to back up a decision to send him. Melia has essentially stopped fencing for the moment and Cook hasn't had the results either.

Adam Blight
-21st May 2012, 09:22
Interesting suggestions by munky. I of course agree with others here. The same logic that might put Philip Marsh ahead of Jon Willis would surely put Husayn Rosowsky ahead of Laurence Halsted. Also, when you consider we are hoping for a medal and non of our fencers have any consistency of performing to that level, both Husayn and Philip have shown a genuine capacity to achieve breakthrough results at international level, and that's what's going too be needed.

Adam Blight
-21st May 2012, 09:29
Also, check the updated World Rankings, Husayn up to 65, Halsted down to 85

munkey
-21st May 2012, 10:04
I'd still pick Halsted. He has consistently been GB's no. 2 foilist ranked comfortably in the top 50 in the world for many years and achieved medals at World Cups and Europeans. He broke his wrist at the beginning of the year and missed all the World Cups in Europe. His recovery has been slow and he has only recently returned to full training with foil in hand (although S&C coach, Rhys Ingram's tweets suggest he's been working hard throughout). If the physios are confident he's going to make a full recovery there is plenty of time to find form at the Europeans, St Petersburg etc before the Olympics. Husayn has had a great first senior season with a L32 and this weekend's L16 in Seoul (plus winning the Nationals and Leon Paul Cup) but I think the selectors will show faith in Laurence's ability to bounce back from injury and hit top form in about 70 days from now.


I think a team of Davis, Rosowsky, Jeffries and Melia could qualify for Rio if the support from UKSport continues post 2012.

J4G
-21st May 2012, 10:17
Where have the mentions of Rhys come from? I thought he'd stopped internationals for now...or at least I'd assumed so since I've heard nothing

If you're going off world rankings then Kenber is #3 in the FIE and has been consistent in his results over the last couple of years, more so than Halsted who has fluctuated a lot (yes he has had moments of brilliance, but nothing for a while). Rosowsky and Davis have done incredibly well this season with JD having done enough to make the team I reckon and Rosowsky to be considered. For me, LH isn't even in the mix based on his performance and results but will be considered or put in anyway.

MF: Kruse, Davis, Kenber. Reserve: Rosowsky/Halsted

Jacdaw
-21st May 2012, 10:26
I think a team of Davis, Rosowsky, Jeffries and Melia could qualify for Rio if the support from UKSport continues post 2012.
I would love to see a team of younger fencers!

Adam Blight
-21st May 2012, 10:41
it terms of getting a medal, the odds have to be against and for this reason younger fencers (i.e. Rosowsky and Marsh) with the energy, drive and motivation to make a real breakthrough could be a better bet. Laurence is off course a great fencer with lots of experience and he has certainly had a very unfortunate year, however, his world ranking has declined since 2009. Kenber has a strong position, got a 64 at Seoul and then didn't seem to be in the team???? I keep hearing different things about an injury.

munkey
-21st May 2012, 10:48
Kenber has a strong position, got a 64 at Seoul and then didn't seem to be in the team???? I keep hearing different things about an injury.

A variety of injuries. Hard to keep track of them all!

J4G
-21st May 2012, 10:50
A variety of injuries. Hard to keep track of them all!

But fencing well never-the-less! 5v1d after poules!

Fencer91
-21st May 2012, 10:58
Halstead is not a better fencer than Kenber or Rosowsky at this point in time. Yes he has experience but that can only count for so much. Sustaining such a serious injury and not competing for nearly the entire year and when he has - he has not performed and yet you would still put him on the team? Further to this Davis and Rosowsky have had new breakthroughs on the A grade circuit against the top 10 fencers while those fencers have not had time to analyse them properly giving the possibility of an additional advantage in having those two on our team

Foilling Around
-21st May 2012, 16:52
Much though LH has been a big part of the reason men's foil has been dragged along over the past few years, I don't think the performance manager has a lot of time for sentiment. I suspect she likes the upward trajectory. If it is a 50/50 decision I suspect she will go with the better prospect for Rio and beyond. That is why I was not surprised when it seems that JW has not been selected. If there is a men's epeeist then it will be PM.

Given that there is unlikely to be a women's foil team event in Rio, I am surprised that the women's épée team, with some good young prospects in CL and JM are not in with a bigger shout. I will be delighted of course if there is a women's foil team there as I know they have been working really hard .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Fencer91
-21st May 2012, 17:32
If Willis has not actually been selcted and PM goes in his stead that is decision is a joke. The speculation of future potential only goes so far. It is a credible argument in MF as the younger fencers are showing their future potential with results like Rosowsky. Marsh has had one result (great as it was) a year ago in the junior worlds and bearing in mind this year he didnt make it past the 64 there and that he hasn't got further than a 64 in an A grade (I don't think). This topic of selection is simultaneously running in another thread, merge them?

munkey
-21st May 2012, 20:53
Halstead is not a better fencer than Kenber or Rosowsky at this point in time. Yes he has experience but that can only count for so much. Sustaining such a serious injury and not competing for nearly the entire year and when he has - he has not performed and yet you would still put him on the team? Further to this Davis and Rosowsky have had new breakthroughs on the A grade circuit against the top 10 fencers while those fencers have not had time to analyse them properly giving the possibility of an additional advantage in having those two on our team

The thread's called "Guess the Wildcards" not "Who do you think SHOULD be given a wild card?" We'll find out soon enough.

Fencer91
-21st May 2012, 20:56
By stating who I think should and shouldnt get the wild cards I thought it was obvious I was giving my guess on the wild cards......

munkey
-21st May 2012, 21:28
By stating who I think should and shouldnt get the wild cards I thought it was obvious I was giving my guess on the wild cards......

Well you're having a rant about how JW should get a wild card but virtually the whole world already knows he's not been selected so its not a good guess. Whether or not Philip Marsh is selected remains to be seen but I think he will. I don't necessarily think it is the right decision but its clear that JW hasn't been selected so there's no point putting his name in any list of possible wild card/home nation selections. List the teams and individuals you think will be selected.

Fencer91
-21st May 2012, 21:39
If I want to rant about why people have/haven't been and might/might not be selected I will rant. This is a forum for debate and discussion and this thread both a debate about who people's Wild card guesses and whether or not people agree with those selections. Just because the title of the thread says one thing it does not mean the discussion hasn't evolved. I'm not going to create another thread on virtually the same topic just because my post doesn't fit what you deem the criteria of this thread to be.

munkey
-21st May 2012, 21:44
LOL. Rant on then.

Fencer91
-21st May 2012, 21:45
thank god I have your permission to do so

Inspector Clouseau
-21st May 2012, 21:53
thank god I have your permission to do so

Yes yes the old 'thank god I have your permission' ploy!

cesh_fencing
-21st May 2012, 22:15
Well you're having a rant about how JW should get a wild card but virtually the whole world already knows he's not been selected so its not a good guess. Whether or not Philip Marsh is selected remains to be seen but I think he will. I don't necessarily think it is the right decision but its clear that JW hasn't been selected so there's no point putting his name in any list of possible wild card/home nation selections. List the teams and individuals you think will be selected.

The general lack of any support for ME generally over the last few years, (especially from the PDs) even with World Cup wins and a World Junior Champion leads me to feel that the wildcards will go elsewhere..

Real shame as the above mentioned results prove how random ME can be and in reality, apart from MF, ME has the ability to produce Gold Medal winning results on the day, which I do not feel has been seen at other weapons..

I wait and hope on the selection of ME fencer, but not with much hope.. Just hope that some shitfty business does not occur and all of Epee gets snubbed...

Will of course support any GBR fencer competing, but am sure there will be many who miss out on 'politics' rather than results/possibility of a result...

munkey
-21st May 2012, 22:22
From British Fencing's Facebook (about an hour ago):British Fencing (https://www.facebook.com/pages/British-Fencing/137831210401)
BF is in the process of nominating fencers for host nation places. BOA will announce the fencing team in 2 phases – 28th May & 12th June.Exciting, no? If fencers are informed more or less immediately, as they were after the last round of nominations, should we expect the social feeds ban to hold?

Foilling Around
-21st May 2012, 22:26
thank god I have your permission to do so

But you rant like an England Football fan! Sigh!

Anyway, rants rarely get you anywhere, only well presented inescapable logic.

At the end of the day no-one except RK and NS has done enough to demand selection. The rest is a judgement call and there are people paid to make those decisions. Now the judgement between current performance and future potential is a tricky one.

The only person who seems to have jumped out of the woodwork at the last minute and shouted "pick me" loud enough is Jo Hutch. I really don't think the rest could have a serious gripe if the selectors took one over another.

Baldric
-21st May 2012, 22:31
At the end of the day no-one except RK and NS has done enough to demand selection.


Yep. The whole situation summed up in one sentence.

coach carson
-22nd May 2012, 07:42
But you rant like an England Football fan! Sigh!

Anyway, rants rarely get you anywhere, only well presented inescapable logic.

At the end of the day no-one except RK and NS has done enough to demand selection. The rest is a judgement call and there are people paid to make those decisions. Now the judgement between current performance and future potential is a tricky one.

The only person who seems to have jumped out of the woodwork at the last minute and shouted "pick me" loud enough is Jo Hutch. I really don't think the rest could have a serious gripe if the selectors took one over another.


Possibly the most sensible post of 2012.

Capt. Fantastic
-22nd May 2012, 12:10
Here's my stab at the Guess the Wild cards.

I would select the following based on information from the FIE rankings and results.

Men's foil

Davis
Rosowsky

Kember or Halstead ( team reserve )

Men's Sabre

Honeybone
O' Connell

Men's Epee

Willis

Women's Sabre

Nicoll
Hutchison

Women's Epee

Lawrence

That's my 8 plus Kruse and Shepherd who have qualified by direct entry.

Roll on the 28th May


Capt. Fantastic

RIchardn
-22nd May 2012, 13:46
Possibly the most sensible post of 2012.

I couldn't agree more.
If we assume that anyone who has had to rely on a wild card rather than qualifying has, by definition, a slim chance of a medal wouldn't it be better to give this opoortunity and experince to young "up and coming" fencers?

hokers
-22nd May 2012, 14:00
I couldn't agree more.
If we assume that anyone who has had to rely on a wild card rather than qualifying has, by definition, a slim chance of a medal wouldn't it be better to give this opoortunity and experince to young "up and coming" fencers?

Initially, I think your assumption is wrong. We have 4 fencers not qualified who have higher rankings than Natalia.* They probably have MORE of a chance if we look at the statistics alone.

Secondly, why? How would that be better?

Why deny the people who got close but fell just short the opportunity to compete at a home Olympics?
Surely that's what the home nations places should be for, not just for future experience for some juniors who may or may not be still competing in 4 years time? All of the people we are talking about have met the published nomination eligibility criteria, which might have been justification for including younger fencers if they hadn't. If you want them to get some experience, send them as a sparring partner.


*note - no criticism of Natalia is implied here, just looking on paper at rankings alone.

Foilling Around
-22nd May 2012, 16:58
Initially, I think your assumption is wrong. We have 4 fencers not qualified who have higher rankings than Natalia.* They probably have MORE of a chance if we look at the statistics alone.

Secondly, why? How would that be better?

Why deny the people who got close but fell just short the opportunity to compete at a home Olympics?
Surely that's what the home nations places should be for, not just for future experience for some juniors who may or may not be still competing in 4 years time? All of the people we are talking about have met the published nomination eligibility criteria, which might have been justification for including younger fencers if they hadn't. If you want them to get some experience, send them as a sparring partner.


*note - no criticism of Natalia is implied here, just looking on paper at rankings alone.

Unfortunately Hokers you are wrong. The WCPP funding is based on getting medals. If you are not considered an outside medal prospect and you have not qualified by right then there is no room for sentiment.

If they are not worthy then you go on to the next generation and prepare them. Now the downside is that the next generation may be put off by the slim chance of success and the prospect of being treated like a piece of meat to be thrown on the scrap heap. The counter argument is that those who will become true champions will not even contemplate failure and will believe they will succeed no matter what the odds.

The paymasters in this instance are UKSport not BF and they are not in the business of rewarding people for hard work only for success.

The PM is not actually part of BF. She is not even subject to BF grievance procedures. I am not saying that the PM is not interested in the views of BF members, just that we are not paying the piper, so we do not call the tune.

The harsh realities of British sport. For every athlete we watch in London in all sports there are probably 5 or more athletes at home angry, disappointed and/or hurt at not being there.

Threestain
-22nd May 2012, 17:04
the harsh realities of british sport have never managed to translate themselves into medals.

the paymasters have not been able to generate a good sporting nation sadly

Jacdaw
-22nd May 2012, 17:33
Who would you consider to be 'Up and Coming' and worthy of the place?

munkey
-22nd May 2012, 17:49
the harsh realities of british sport have never managed to translate themselves into medals.

the paymasters have not been able to generate a good sporting nation sadly

Not yet in fencing perhaps but 4th in the medal table in Beijing suggests you're totally wrong there Tristan. Compare with GB results in Atlanta in 1996 (the last Olympics before widespread lottery-funded support for athletes in the UK) and you'll appreciate that enormous progress made in that time. Sports that embraced the more professional demands of UK Sport at that time, such as cycling, have been massively successful. The fact that fencing has only had a World Class Program for 6 years (and arguably has not made best use of that time) is reflected in our medal prospects for 2012.

Threestain
-22nd May 2012, 18:51
fair play, I stand corrected. thank god for cycling - 14 of 47! to be fair it was monstrously good performance - 50% better than athens or sydney (30 and 28, ranked 10 and 10) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics) - blip or improvement?

however, equally I would say that we are one of the last sporting nations about, looking at my patients.

of course, it may be that once our current athletes and juniors become old there will be a different demographic.

munkey
-22nd May 2012, 19:22
fair play, I stand corrected. thank god for cycling - 14 of 47! to be fair it was monstrously good performance - 50% better than athens or sydney (30 and 28, ranked 10 and 10) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics) - blip or improvement?

however, equally I would say that we are one of the last sporting nations about, looking at my patients.

of course, it may be that once our current athletes and juniors become old there will be a different demographic.

There are various methods of predicting GB medal success (mostly based on performances at major championships and world ranking) at the forthcoming Games and all point towards 4th or at worst 5th.

You're a doctor, you see patients. I'm a fencing coach, I see lots of kids participating in sport. Between us, we probably have a balanced view of our nation's health and the long-term prospects for improvement.;)

Red
-22nd May 2012, 19:56
USA and Australia tend to be a bit good at sport but both nations have a higher incidence of obesity that Britain.

LifeBeginsAt58
-22nd May 2012, 21:43
The Scottish Fencing site, over the last couple of days, does appear to be plumping for Keith; not overtly, but somewhat sublimally as far as I can make out!
Every page on the site (I'm on IE 9) keeps bringing up a pop-up that advertises how much better the user experience is by tracking Cookies.
I have no problem with this at all;would love to track Cookies' progress this summer; he's a joy to watch but there appears to be no effective way of dismissing this testimonial! Asking to hide the pop-up is accepted and then just ignored.
You haven't taken up web-site authoring have you Munkey?
:)

munkey
-23rd May 2012, 09:08
Dunno what you mean LBA58 ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&client=mv-google&v=6xwdgVpjkn4&feature=youtu.be&nomobile=1

Threestain
-23rd May 2012, 12:19
USA and Australia tend to be a bit good at sport but both nations have a higher incidence of obesity that Britain.

actually recent figures for youth obesity in UK and America are soberingly the same...

approx 30% overweight or obese in both UK and US for 2-19 year olds...

Vicomte_de_Bragelonne
-23rd May 2012, 13:49
Although there has been much speculation as to who wildcards might be I thought I'd remind all of the eligibility criteria and where Individuals & Teams sit relative to this:

http://www.britishfencing.com/uploads/files/british_fencing_olympic_selection_policy_final.pdf

So based on my calculations (and these may not be perfect :confused:) and ignoring Kruse & Sheppard who are qualified. I've also assumed last weekend was included based on the comment about FIE calendar in the above document.

Teams
MF, WF, MS and WE are all eligible for team events based on being in the top 75% of the Ranking based on the numbers at the World Champs

Individuals
MF - Halsted, Kenber, Davis all eligible via top 50 ranking criteria. (interestingly Rosowsky would be in modified top 45 criteria if there weren't at least 2 Brits higher ranked)
WF - Emmanuel eligible through being in modified top 45
WE - Lawrence eligible via top 50 criteria
ME - Willis eligible via top 50 criteria
WS - Hutchison, Bond Williams, Nicholl all eligible via top 50 criteria (Williams would also be in modified top 45 if there weren't at least 2 Brits higher ranked)
MS - Honeybone eligible via modified top 45 criteria

How this impacts selection will be clearer on the 28th!!

munkey
-23rd May 2012, 14:45
Interesting but Rosowsky, Williams, Marsh and arguably others would possibly be eligible because of Section 12. Basically the home nation places do seem to be almost completely discretionary based on opinion of potential.

Jacdaw
-23rd May 2012, 14:58
"The fencers will be sent a copy of the results and rankings of
all the fencers at their weapon, which will be used by the selectors to decide who
should be nominated."
From the Selection Criteria, Rosowsky's recent L16 will look good on his report, maybe giving him the edge into being selected.

Vicomte_de_Bragelonne
-23rd May 2012, 15:10
Interesting but Rosowsky, Williams, Marsh and arguably others would possibly be eligible because of Section 12. Basically the home nation places do seem to be almost completely discretionary based on opinion of potential.

I agree with you in respect to the team events as the individual criteria can effectively be ignored as irrelevant for this by my reading of things.

It would seem perverse however for the individual events to have these criteria and then ignore them in favour of discretionary selection. (If this is the case then it could be inferred given recent tweets that there would be no ME participation.)

I would say there will definitely be 2xWS therefore that leaves 6 for in my view 2xMFT, 2xWFT, 1xMS and 1xWE. This would then be 4xdiscretionary and 4xeligibility.(possibly :whistle:)

rpryer
-24th May 2012, 07:55
Just as an aside while we wait for the first announcement on Monday, there is a story on The Times website that GB Taekwondo have not selected the current European champion, who will also be world number 1 when the new rankings are released. There may be a political aspect to the non-selection, as the fighter concerned withdrew from the centralised training programme to go it alone.

hokers
-24th May 2012, 10:07
Interesting but Rosowsky, Williams, Marsh and arguably others would possibly be eligible because of Section 12. Basically the home nation places do seem to be almost completely discretionary based on opinion of potential.

Pretty sure Junior world #18 Aliya, or Junior world #27 Curtis might have a case for future potential alongside these others.

But like I keep saying, the whole idea of "for experience" seems a bit of a joke. These are fencers who have been/will go to multiple European and World Championships. The idea that competing in one more championships, prestigious or not will make a difference to their future medal prospects seems crazy, especially considering that would mean taking a place from a person with a better chance right now, based on their current results this season. Exactly what difference will it make to their fencing?

We'll just have to see what happens on Monday, this is all hypothetical until then really. The time for arguing about the host nation criteria was some time ago really, but something to consider for future championship criteria.

cesh_fencing
-24th May 2012, 11:59
Just as an aside while we wait for the first announcement on Monday, there is a story on The Times website that GB Taekwondo have not selected the current European champion, who will also be world number 1 when the new rankings are released. There may be a political aspect to the non-selection, as the fighter concerned withdrew from the centralised training programme to go it alone.

Would have thought that the BOA would insist that a athlete at this level was selected as their prime concern is 'Medals' not internal Governing body's politics.

In reality I guess the Taekwando athlete saw 2 options, doing it through the flawed National Body set-up and never reaching the standard of being World No 1, or risking doing it his own way, making it to World number 1 and hoping that the Governing body saw the errors of there ways.

Is a real shame when politics goes above common sense.

Just hope that when the fencing selections are made that fencers seen to have been financially supporting fencers/teams are not seen to be given priority over talant. Let us wait and see..

tigger
-24th May 2012, 17:08
The (not unwelcome) problem for Taekwando is that they have a number of European Champions (maybe 4?) plus another World Champion who wasn't there due to injury, and I think 4 places...so it may not be as straightforward as it first seems, although I'm no expert

Keith.A.Smith
-24th May 2012, 20:41
Looking forward to hearing who has been selected.

Highlander
-25th May 2012, 20:15
If the wrong team is picked for the wrong reasons
the Performance Director has to resign.
Getting fencers experience of one Olympics to ensure a medal in another
Is not the right decision and not the right reason.
Places at future Olympics are not a given.
We need our best fencers now. Anything else is massively flawed and she has to go!

Ellen Preis
-25th May 2012, 23:02
Looking forward to hearing who has been selected.

A little backside covering, Mr President, in case your selections aren't received well?

Ellen Preis
-25th May 2012, 23:11
If the wrong team is picked for the wrong reasons
the Performance Director has to resign.
Getting fencers experience of one Olympics to ensure a medal in another
Is not the right decision and not the right reason.
Places at future Olympics are not a given.
We need our best fencers now. Anything else is massively flawed and she has to go!

What if the wrong team is picked for the *right* reasons, like it has been for the last 20+ years and for which there is nothing to show for it. Will you resign?

Danum
-26th May 2012, 05:06
A little backside covering, Mr President, in case your selections aren't received well?

They are not his selections but those of the Performance Director.

Highlander
-26th May 2012, 06:54
What if the wrong team is picked for the *right* reasons, like it has been for the last 20+ years and for which there is nothing to show for it. Will you resign?

Well I would take responsibility if I was picking the Team
And if I made a mess of it Yes I Would resign
power comes with responsibility

Foilling Around
-26th May 2012, 07:18
They are not his selections but those of the Performance Director.

In fact there is a performance group so it is not just the performance manager

Highlander, it is not our decision as to what are the right reason. If our funding providers say it is medals or development and the PM/PG follow that strategy then they have followed their brief.

Whether that is right or wrong I leave to you to decide.

Ronald Velden
-26th May 2012, 09:57
There is a process still ongoing, which will not be completed until Monday. I anticipate that Olympic selection
will be announced by BOA on Tuesday.

There is no point in speculating until then.

What I do know is that noone should blame the President of BFA if they do not like the outcome, because frankly
he has now very limited say in the decision making process in sport.

I do not want to comment on Criteria, Process or Discretion applied but the only ones responsible for decisions
taken are Performance Manager backed by Coaches and the Performance Advisory Group who rubber stamped
her recommendations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with UK Sport or even BOA.

Highlander
-26th May 2012, 13:00
I do not side with the President
In fact In my opinion he has held back fencing in Britain for at least the Eight years I have been fencing.
The new PD has been a breath of fresh air.
The only problem I have is a fencer being given a discreationary place in front of anyone who is no1 in the national rankings.
In my opinion it makes us a laughing stock in the sporting world and is morally wrong.

Jeff

Keith.A.Smith
-26th May 2012, 14:50
Dear Jeff, or Highlander or whomever you are.

No one is asking you to take sides.

I hope you will offer to help fencing in the future.

Highlander
-26th May 2012, 18:05
If I do Keith, it will be for the sport and only the sport
No political games at the expense of good fencers who give something back to Fencing.
For too long under the previous regime there we're political games.
When the new people came in from sports other than fencing I thought this would change.
But unfortunately it seems the new people just have different agendas and games to suit their own ends
and to justify their previous funding decisions at the expence of what is right.
If as I expect all people selected for the Olympics are the ones funded and not the unfunded fencers with a higher ranking it will show that their own interests are looked after first and not that of fencing in Britain.

Jeff kiy
Highlander

jimcrawfurd
-26th May 2012, 20:09
[QUOTE=Ronald Velden;263869]There is a process still ongoing, which will not be completed until Monday. I anticipate that Olympic selection
will be announced by BOA on Tuesday.

There is no point in speculating until then.

Except that this thread was titled "Guess the wildcards" for the simple fact that speculation is fun

J4G
-28th May 2012, 08:31
Eagerly awaiting the selections...so close now!

J4G
-28th May 2012, 09:25
Just realised that Kenber hasn't been selected for the GP this weekend...injured again maybe?

Swords Crossed
-28th May 2012, 15:36
We were expecting the individual selections to be announced at some point today, weren't we...?

Lefty Foilist
-28th May 2012, 16:11
They have just agreed............................................ ............................................... that we are not orcs.

fenderstrat
-28th May 2012, 19:34
I wanted to send you a spot of rep for that supremely geeky comment, lefty old horse, but the software won't let me. Murderers and friends of elves, I shouldn't be surprised to learn.

dtd
-28th May 2012, 19:53
Just as an aside while we wait for the first announcement on Monday, there is a story on The Times website that GB Taekwondo have not selected the current European champion, who will also be world number 1 when the new rankings are released. There may be a political aspect to the non-selection, as the fighter concerned withdrew from the centralised training programme to go it alone.

Selections were supposed to be announced today, right?? Nothing on the British Fencing website, nothing on Google, but this headline on BBC Sport caught my eye:

'Cook makes London 2012 plea to BOA'

No, not Keith Cook, but Aaron Cook the Taekwondo European Champion mentioned above after his appeal was turned down. I certainly see parallels with fencing. The article includes the following comments:

The BOA has confirmed to BBC Sport that they will meet on Tuesday to discuss GB Taekwondo's athlete nominations for London 2012. The panel ... will have the final say in who represents Team GB at an Olympics. They could veto a selection decision by GB Taekwondo.

There is also a quotation from Sir Matthew Pinsent:

"There seems to be no doubt that Aaron Cook has fallen victim to small-time sports politics - come off it, Team GB demands better."

Starting to get a feeling of deja vu.

hokers
-28th May 2012, 20:08
I don't believe it..

http://britishfencing.com/news/latest-news/?n=583

rory
-28th May 2012, 20:13
I don't believe it..

http://britishfencing.com/news/latest-news/?n=583

OK - so, did they post too early and delete? What was the content?

Also - a 404 page would be nice. That website's a disgrace.

Ronald Velden
-28th May 2012, 20:30
As I wrote previously process is ongoing and announcement of team will not happen before Tuesday at earliest.

Rdb811
-28th May 2012, 22:54
OK - so, did they post too early and delete? What was the content?

Also - a 404 page would be nice. That website's a disgrace.

"Invalid argument supplied" - oops.

RIchardn
-29th May 2012, 08:46
From todays Telegraph ( and article on the Tae Kwan Do decision)

Fencing delayed Monday’s announcement of its team disciplines because it is facing appeals from four athletes omitted from its 14-member squad, and judo also faces appeals from those who have missed out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/taekwondo/9296139/London-2012-Olympics-Aaron-Cook-is-the-only-choice-for-GB-taekwondo-team-says-Sir-Steve-Redgrave.html

hokers
-29th May 2012, 09:10
"Invalid argument supplied" - oops.

Gotcha :D :D :D


Some more commentary from the Sun here:


Sabre's rattling

IT’S daggers — or swords — drawn in the usually polite world of fencing.

Four athletes have appealed after not getting one of the eight host-nation places available to GB fencers who have not qualified as of right for London 2012.

Anonymous letters have made allegations about the exclusion of the two highest-ranked GB women in the sabre, Chrystall Nicoll and Jo Hutchinson.

British Fencing insist they have followed selection criteria.

But whatever verdict is announced by adjudicators Sport Resolutions, it is unlikely to be the end of the story.


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4343491/Dan-Kings-Sport-Uncovered-West-Ham-board-annoy-loyal-season-ticket-holders.html

jimcrawfurd
-29th May 2012, 09:22
If (as suggested by the Sun, so probably not correct) Jo Hutchison hasn't been selected after performance at qualifiers and Bologna L16 (before the selection cut off) and Tianjin L16 (possibly after selection cut off) then there is something seriously wrong with the selection process. She is currently the second highest ranked Brit across all 6 weapons on FIE rankings (only RK is higher) and is demonstrating that her performance is peaking at exactly the right moment. Ho Hum, the joys of sports politics.

Ronald Velden
-29th May 2012, 09:24
The appeals was carried out by the same independent body who have been dealing with Taekwondo. The tribunal was chaired by a QC.

His findings will be published today when appeal is determined and it should make very interesting reading whatever the outcome.

The allegations referred to in Sun are surprising, because it suggests that there must be more than one anonymous letter circulating National Press. One of the broad sheets has also been investigating such a letter.
Frankly I find it distasteful that someone has acted in this way. It is going to bring the sport into disrepute.

Lefty Foilist
-29th May 2012, 09:36
Would it not have been easier if BF simply announced that there would be a delay in the squad announcement to consider the four appeals and that there would be an actual announcement in x-number of days? To paraphrase the immortal Sir Humphrey, sometimes it's easier to tell the press about something sensitive that they could easily find out some other way. Pre-empt the possibility of bringing in disrepute, as it were.

Ronald Velden
-29th May 2012, 09:49
The matter was not actually quite as simple as that and it was and is at moment subjudice. Everything will come
in wash once decision is announced and published.

cesh_fencing
-29th May 2012, 10:04
It is going to bring the sport into disrepute.

Unfortunately when selection is subjective rather than by ranking/pure results, then the sport does possibly ask for it. Especially when the person with a major contribution in these decisions has little 'real' on the ground knowledge about the sport.

BigPappaBear
-29th May 2012, 10:35
<quote=Ronald V>One of the broad sheets has also been investigating such a letter.</quote>

If there is any truth in the letter then maybe those involved have brought the sport into disripute and not the author of the anonymous letter.

pcooper
-29th May 2012, 11:46
I hear these have now been completed

hokers
-29th May 2012, 14:55
Maybe it's going to be MFT, WFT, WET + 1 other (PM?)?

That might explain the 4 appeals, JH/CN/JHb/JW?

Very, very difficult to see how you would justify selecting 2 other WE (next best two ranked 90 and 108) ahead of JB and CN at 38 and 50 though.

Hope we find out soon, will wear out my F5 key otherwise.

Ronald Velden
-29th May 2012, 15:10
The appeals process has been completed and has now been published.

I will leave it to the BFA and BOA to announce the team before making any comment, but it does raise very
serious issues at least in my mind about all those matters which the Board and its Chair claim should be improved in the sport namely good Governence, Transparency, Competence, Professionalism, Impartiality
and above all Integrity.

As far as I am concerned the BFA has fallen way short of the standards of fairness and practising what they
preach in the way selection of Olympic Team has been handled.

British Fencing
-29th May 2012, 15:35
The report has NOT been published and all parties to this binding arbitration process are under a strict confidentiality agreement.

TBennett
-29th May 2012, 15:47
The report has NOT been published and all parties to this binding arbitration process are under a strict confidentiality agreement.

...you say that but not sure if it will stop the rumour-mill going crazy...

aries
-29th May 2012, 16:09
The report has NOT been published and all parties to this binding arbitration process are under a strict confidentiality agreement.

Why.......................?

Carte Noire
-29th May 2012, 16:40
Why indeed?

It is one of those situations where questions must be asked about whether total confidentiality is the right way to go.

Keeping the names of plaintives and indeed specific details of greivances confidential may be appropriate. However in the interests of transparancey surely a general statement, either saying that the review body having heard the appeal they believed that due process had been correctly followed or that discrepencies had found which required the decisions to be reviewed.

The issuing of this type of statement would I'm sure be less than satisfactory to many people but somewhat better than no information at all. If the process was followed correctly then telling people will be good. If not then BF members, as stakeholders in the process should know that it has failed even if details cannot be revealed.

Sadly I suspect the confidentiality is not the choice of either BF or the fencers but rather comes either from the adjudicators or from the BOA. Not people who necessarily share the board's vision regarding transparency.

Roll on the announcment then...

Swords Crossed
-29th May 2012, 16:47
Roll on the announcment then...

Or at least a heads up as to when we can expect one, especially as we don't exactly appear to be keeping to the published timeline (http://www.britishfencing.com/uploads/files/fencing_selection_timeline_2012_-_final_with_pag_included.pdf), even with the appeals process taken into account. Uncertainty is the grist the rumour mill grinds.

Ronald Velden
-29th May 2012, 17:10
The Appeal has been published because the outcome and reasons for decision have been communicated to the
interested parties. There is of course a confidentiality agreement by the relevent parties. Noone can comment
on the appeal elsewhere.

However, that does not prevent anyone else including myself from expressing an opinion on the selections and more importantly on how British Fencing and the people involved in selections have conducted themselves.

I can assure you that I intend to do just that once the selections are announced even if it causes acute embarassment to all those who are involved. I think that British Fencing are going to come out of this sorry
affair with their reputations tarnished.

What is also beginning to happen is that British Fencing through their spinmaster David King have a habit of
glossing over reality and creating a story that suits their argument. We have seen such a situation published today about EGM. I hope that people are not so naive as to believe everything that is published.

MrsB
-29th May 2012, 17:40
What is also beginning to happen is that British Fencing through their spinmaster David King have a habit of
glossing over reality and creating a story that suits their argument. We have seen such a situation published today about EGM. I hope that people are not so naive as to believe everything that is published.

I don't think that David King had much to do with the timing of the egm announcement made today. After I posted yesterday about the lack of information on the BF non-site (on the egm notice thread) I did that thing that David Teasdale often says we should do which is to contact him. I emailed him, said I was surprised there was no official feedback yet, and suggested that it really was about time there was something; he said something like you're right, we've [the directors] talked about it and we really ought to report back, I'll address it today, and then it appeared this afternoon!

I really don't think it was a calculated move - I'm not convinced that they're that sophisticated in their communication management, but then again perhaps I'm naive.

rpryer
-29th May 2012, 18:06
I think Ronald was suggesting that the Board statement on the EGM was not a true picture of what happened, rather than referring to its timing.


On the selection issue, there is a difference between publishing something (i.e. making it publicly available) and providing confidential details to those involved.

Mr Wise Guy
-29th May 2012, 20:21
When are we going to know?

TBennett
-29th May 2012, 20:27
The rumblings indicate tomorrow....but we shall see. I hope very much that our Performance Manager is going to provide us with her full rationale behind the selection decisions she has made for the Home Nation Places.

Mr Wise Guy
-29th May 2012, 20:39
Yeah that would be nice! And I hope it's tomorrow because it really should have been today!

British Fencing
-29th May 2012, 21:27
As British Fencing's Spinmaster™ (the t-shirt has been ordered) I would like to report that the Sports Resolutions Decision on the Appeals written by Charles Flint QC will be published at 10am Wednesday morning and will be available on the Sports Resolutions UK website and on the British Fencing website.

I would like to further report that as a result of the appeals process, our announcement event set by the BOA to announce the TeamGB fencing athletes was missed. The BOA will make a statement tomorrow regarding British Fencing's selections for London 2012. We are now in discussion with the BOA about a new date for announcement that would be in advance of our next scheduled date of 12 June.

We will let you know more as soon as we know it.

munkey
-29th May 2012, 21:41
Almost regardless of which individuals and teams are selected and finally announced I feel this has been badly communicated by BF. Even an announcement that there would be no announcement of individual selection until such and such a date would have been helpful, ideally with an explanation of why. Clearly I would have greatly preferred the individuals selections to have been announced on Monday when everyone expected them.

I can only hope that the actual selections don't leave me shaking my head in disbelief but I'm increasingly doubtful that's going to be the case. 6 years of WCP (many of them seemingly utterly shambolic although Alex Newton does seem to have addressed many of the training and sports science/S&C deficiencies), numerous external (non-fencer) appointments to BF Board and staff and millions of pounds of UKSport and Sport England money don't seem to have got us any closer to being able to announce the GB Team for these "once in a lifetime" home Olympics in a way that doesn't seem totally amateurish. Rubbish really :-(

munkey
-29th May 2012, 21:44
As British Fencing's Spinmaster™ (the t-shirt has been ordered) I would like to report that the Sports Resolutions Decision on the Appeals written by Charles Flint QC will be published at 10am Wednesday morning and will be available on the Sports Resolutions UK website and on the British Fencing website.

I would like to further report that as a result of the appeals process, our announcement event set by the BOA to announce the TeamGB fencing athletes was missed. The BOA will make a statement tomorrow regarding British Fencing's selections for London 2012. We are now in discussion with the BOA about a new date for announcement that would be in advance of our next scheduled date of 12 June.

We will let you know more as soon as we know it.

Why am I not at all reassured by this?

Ellen Preis
-29th May 2012, 21:45
The Appeal has been published because the outcome and reasons for decision have been communicated to the
interested parties. There is of course a confidentiality agreement by the relevent parties. Noone can comment
on the appeal elsewhere.


I can assure you that I intend to do just that once the selections are announced even if it causes acute embarassment to all those who are involved. I think that British Fencing are going to come out of this sorry
affair with their reputations tarnished.

Ronald - can I humbly ask whether you are of the belief that some BF members (like yourself) are more equal than others? The way you conduct yourself on the Forum, the patronizing tone of your posts as well as the omnipresent hint of 'knowing more than others' does make me feel slightly nauseous and leads me to assume that you are actually convinced you could draw Excalibur - if only they let you.
One other thing, are you actually a fencer?

aries
-29th May 2012, 22:06
Ronald - can I humbly ask whether you are of the belief that some BF members (like yourself) are more equal than others? The way you conduct yourself on the Forum, the patronizing tone of your posts as well as the omnipresent hint of 'knowing more than others' does make me feel slightly nauseous and leads me to assume that you are actually convinced you could draw Excalibur - if only they let you.
One other thing, are you actually a fencer?

I think Mr. Veldon is entitled to make his views known if the selections made deserve to cause embarrassment.
I certainly don't think such a personal attack is in order and could be considered more than a touch "patronising" even "spiteful"

British Fencing
-29th May 2012, 22:15
Selection for the Olympics is not a British Fencing announcement. It is a BOA announcement. It is not British Fencing's prerogative to announce or comment on the BOA announcement or any changes thereto.

The BOA have said they will make a statement on British Fencing's athlete selection tomorrow, 30th May.

munkey
-29th May 2012, 22:34
Selection for the Olympics is not a British Fencing announcement. It is a BOA announcement. It is not British Fencing's prerogative to announce or comment on the BOA announcement or any changes thereto.

The BOA have said they will make a statement on British Fencing's athlete selection tomorrow, 30th May.

"Once all the appeals and any new decision making has been taken into account, the names of the nominated athletes will be put to the BOA for selection. Once the selections have taken place by the BOA, with the timing dependent on the outcome of the appeals, they will announce the selected Fencers on Monday 28th May 2012 for the athletes selected as individuals."

The above from the Statement from the Performance Manager on the BF website. I find it interesting (and a bit worrying) that you are saying BOA will make a statement tomorrow, not that "they will announce the selected fencers". I disagree with you quite strongly about BF keeping its members updated about when they are likely to hear news from the BOA about which of its athletes will represent them at the Olympics. I'm not asking you to comment, merely to inform us of communication timeline.

Ronald Velden
-29th May 2012, 22:36
Elen Preis

Do you think that young athletes have not sought advice? The athletes are not the only people who know what
is going on. As the BFA said there is a confidentiality clause, but that does not prevent other people commenting
on those matters which were not subject to appeal.

Interested
-29th May 2012, 22:44
Ronald - can I humbly ask whether you are of the belief that some BF members (like yourself) are more equal than others? The way you conduct yourself on the Forum, the patronizing tone of your posts as well as the omnipresent hint of 'knowing more than others' does make me feel slightly nauseous and leads me to assume that you are actually convinced you could draw Excalibur - if only they let you.
One other thing, are you actually a fencer?

After 10+ years of lurking I've finally been prompted by the need to register and say that this must be one of the most pathetic posts I've read on the forum.

Back on topic - I think BF has handled the communication of the selection process and appeals procedure very poorly.

Peaseblossom
-29th May 2012, 22:47
Out of curiosity I've just tried searching the BF website to find some answers to gaps in my understanding about who has been officially feeding their views into the selection process.

Alex Newton wrote in her piece on the BF website (16th May):
I was supported in preparing the nominations by the Performance Team which includes the national coach for each weapon and the science and medicine team. In addition, I consulted with and got the views of the Performance Advisory Group (PAG), which had someone from each weapon, in addition to a number of other fencing representatives.

Can anyone tell me who are the national coaches for foil, epee and sabre? I've looked everywhere and can't find that list.

Does anyone know who is on 'the science and medicine team'? Alex's mention of it was the first I've heard of it. I can't see it on the list of committees.

What is the difference between the Performance Team and the Performance Advisory Group and who else was on these groups? I'm just curious about the process and who is involved. Is this information meant to be in the public domain at all and, if so, where is it?

Also, does anyone know why no BF Board minutes have been put on the website in 2012? I had wondered if they might have held some answers to the above questions but these documents don't seem to be there either. Maybe it's just the fact that much of the BF website is still a mystery to me.

Fencer91
-29th May 2012, 22:55
[/I]
Can anyone tell me who are the national coaches for foil, epee and sabre? I've looked everywhere and can't find that list.
.

Foil - Ziemek Wojciechowski

no idea about the others

Ronald Velden
-29th May 2012, 23:02
Peaseblossom

The Performance Management Group consists of Alex Newton, 4 coaches and I believe MsMcCombie.

The Performance Advisory Group includes a number of unelected people most of whom have a fencing background.

The current National Coaches are:
Ziemek Wojciechowski Mens Foil
Maciej Wojtkowiak Womens Foil
Alex Agrenich Epee
Jon Salfield Sabre

munkey
-29th May 2012, 23:20
I did ask once who was in the Performance Advisory Group and I remember Mike Thornton (BF Director with responsibility for Performance) and Johnny Davis (1992 GB Olympic men's foiteam member) were part of the group. There were several others including, I think, at least one other BF Board member. Perhaps a total of 8 members?

Othere members of the Performance Team presumably include Rhys Ingram who has been working with the foilists on their Strength & Conditioning training at EIS Lee Valley, physios to update on fencers who are injured or recovering from injury plus any other nutritionists and sports scientists that have been recruited either full-time or part-time to work with funded athletes.

Fencer91
-29th May 2012, 23:31
Othere members of the Performance Team presumably include Rhys Ingram who has been working with the foilists on their Strength & Conditioning training at EIS Lee Valley, physios to update on fencers who are injured or recovering from injury plus any other nutritionists and sports scientists that have been recruited either full-time or part-time to work with funded athletes.

I think it would be extremely interesting to hear his opinion on selection as I think it will have been one of the decisive factors particuarly for the Mens foil team. Not that we will

munkey
-29th May 2012, 23:45
Come on David/British Fencing, you could usefully chip in here with the composition of the Performacne Advisory Group. Or is it a secret?

Foilling Around
-30th May 2012, 06:42
Ronald - can I humbly ask whether you are of the belief that some BF members (like yourself) are more equal than others? The way you conduct yourself on the Forum, the patronizing tone of your posts as well as the omnipresent hint of 'knowing more than others' does make me feel slightly nauseous and leads me to assume that you are actually convinced you could draw Excalibur - if only they let you.
One other thing, are you actually a fencer?

Ellen, I take your point that Ron's posts do come over as self important at times, but he does know a lot about the fencing scene and actually puts a lot of time and effort into developing the sport. I have to admit that if I didn't know that there I times I would have had go about his tone. I just take it as "his manner".

I have a suspicion that the planned announcement schedule did not take into account the full appeals process. Nor did it make it clear that the announcements were the responsibility of the BOA not BF.

I have been involved in the production of junior and cadet calendars for example and for me, from inside the process, everything was moving quickly, At times it didn't occur to me that those waiting for the outcome were unaware of everything going on so they saw it as me being slow and uncommunicative. Now that is the job of PR to realise the mismatch between the internal and the external perception and fix it. In my opinion that is the problem there is not proper PR person standing back and observing both sides.

At least David King, who I have still not managed to meet, is being reactive to concerns. It would be better if there was someone being proactive.

The reason we are all so worried is that we have little confidence in the reasoning behind the selections. The leaks that have come out have done little to assuage those fear. There appears to be a mismatch between those who the vocal contributors on the forum (who do greatly reflect general informed fencing views - in my opinion) about who deserves to go to London and those who appear to be in favour with the selection panel.

We can only wait and see what the BOA decide for both us and taekwondo. I just hope it does not result in too much negative publicity in the likes of The Sun, who I'm sure would love to characterise it as "at little tiff between a load of posh gits".

HelenC
-30th May 2012, 07:20
Article in the Times today.

Helen.

Hungry Hippo
-30th May 2012, 07:32
Article in the Times today. Helen.

As often stated on this forum 'link, please'! However, you have to subscribe to get past the first page of their website, so a link wouldn't be much use.

Can you post the content, Helen? Or at least give us the gist of what they're saying if you've only got the actual newspaper - who reads real papers these days:)

AussieMongrel
-30th May 2012, 07:53
It basically says that British Fencing is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt.

HelenC
-30th May 2012, 07:55
Sorry, if I was at home I'd scan the article and upload it, but I'm not, and I don't want to summarise and spark discussion based on partial facts.

Hopefully someone else who can link to the article will be along soon - as you say a link to the Times website won't help.

Regards,

Helen.

BigPappaBear
-30th May 2012, 07:56
Peaseblossom - not sure that BFA has to publish minutes of board meetings... shame really they may be marginally entertaining!

TBennett
-30th May 2012, 08:05
PM me your e-mail and I'll e-mail you the article.

British Fencing
-30th May 2012, 08:05
Come on David/British Fencing, you could usefully chip in here with the composition of the Performacne Advisory Group. Or is it a secret?

Happy to help. The Performance Advisory Group for the selection process is composed of:

David Teasedale
Keith Smith
Mike Thornton
Piers Martin
Johnny Davis (foil)
Tom Cadman (epee)
Nick Fletcher (sabre)
Barry Paul (equipment)
Clare Halstead (IYC + Medical)
Helen Cartwright (UK Sport)
Georgie Harland (BOA)
Jos Hoyte-Smith (EIS)

Crimson Blade
-30th May 2012, 08:16
Page 62 of The Times.
"British Fencing at sharp end of bitter Olympic selection row"
It focuses on the selection of Sophie Williams over Joanna Hutchinson 'despite being ranked 35 places behind' and suggests that Sophie's father 'bought his daughter her nomination'.
It also suggests nomination based on who the fencer's coach is.
Shame the first time I've seen fencing mentioned in relation to the Olympics with such a large article is to do with corruption...

Capt. Fantastic
-30th May 2012, 08:22
David

I believe that there was also a selection panel as well.

Are you able to advise us who there were and how they where appointed?

pavski
-30th May 2012, 08:28
Page 62 of The Times.
"British Fencing at sharp end of bitter Olympic selection row"
It focuses on the selection of Sophie Williams over Joanna Hutchinson 'despite being ranked 35 places behind' and suggests that Sophie's father 'bought his daughter her nomination'.
It also suggests nomination based on who the fencer's coach is.
Shame the first time I've seen fencing mentioned in relation to the Olympics with such a large article is to do with corruption...

This will no doubt please our sponsers:rolleyes:

TBennett
-30th May 2012, 08:33
I cant seem to upload the .Pdf I have of the article. Can someone else do it if I e-mail them the article?

Mini Musketeer
-30th May 2012, 08:40
Also mentioned in The Telegraph today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9298569/London-2012-Olympics-legal-wrangles-over-selections-spark-fears-best-athletes-may-not-be-representing-GB.html

J4G
-30th May 2012, 08:51
I cant seem to upload the .Pdf I have of the article. Can someone else do it if I e-mail them the article?

I can try

British Fencing
-30th May 2012, 08:51
David

I believe that there was also a selection panel as well.

Are you able to advise us who there were and how they where appointed?

I will, but I have a few other things to deal with today....

We will publish the Appeals report at 10am, the BOA will make a statement on selection and we are trying to get a date for formal press announcement of the team.

Peaseblossom
-30th May 2012, 09:06
Thank you for the various replies to my questions about who was on which group. I think that, in terms of communication, it would really help to have these kinds of bits of information easily accessible on the BF website. It makes BF look as if there is nothing to hide and, until now, for ordinary people like myself, everything has seemed to be very secretive.

This is also the impression that has been given (to me anyway) about the sudden disappearance of Board Minutes. BigPappaBear, did you know that minutes were being published up to the end of last year?
http://www.britishfencing.com/governance/british-fencing-board/board-minutes/
Entertaining they were not, unfortunately, and like most minutes are heftily edited down to the factual stuff. However, they did give a sense in a very general way of what the Board was busy with, and do help 'ordinary' people to understand how much time some volunteers are putting into fencing. Sometimes, I think, they also dispel rumours.

Having posted last night, I re-read the minutes from December 2011 and saw that it was agreed that the Performance Advisory Group would replace the Performance Management Group which has now confused me even more. Given what people are saying is coming out in the presstoday, might it be possible for BF to produce an explanation in simple language, about the whole process of selection as it has evolved, with which groups were advising and who were the actual decision makers. 'Advisors' may have advised very different choices to those actually made, but 'decision makers' are the ones who produced the final list. I could make a guess at this but if things are coming out in papers like The Times, I know that tomorrow night at our club, parents will have seen this publicity and will want to understand. I want to be able to answer questions.

Thanks.

dtd
-30th May 2012, 09:10
There are currently 79 users browsing this thread.......

So I'm not alone in watching this thread with bated breath.

Come on, 10.00 am has come and gone.

Lefty Foilist
-30th May 2012, 09:13
There must be another geeky Ent-quote for this somewhere!

British Fencing
-30th May 2012, 09:14
I frankly don't know about the board minutes, as I was looking for them at 7 this morning and saw nothing for 2012. I can assure you they were not removed for any nefarious reason, but I will find out what the problem is.

We will have a full response to the Times article shortly.

The appeals report covers quite a lot of the selection process, but will address with Piers and Alex and come back.

AussieMongrel
-30th May 2012, 09:17
From Today’s Times*

British Fencing at Sharp end of Bitter Olympic selection row

Four fencers have had their appeals against the decision of the governing body not to nominate them for the Olympic Games rejected, as British Fencing became the latest authority to be riddled
with infighting over a selection process. Sports Resolutions, an independent arbitration service in Central London, dismissed the *appeals yesterday after a two-dav hearing

One of eight fencers nominated for a host nation wild-card place is the daughter of a leading sponsor of the sport who has been accused in a letter shown to The Times, of effectively buying an Olympic ''
Sophie Williams, 21, has been nominated despite being 35 places behind Joanna Hutchison, Britain's No 1 female sabre fencer, who is ranked 38th in the world. Hutchison, who finished 46 places ahead of Williams this month a the Grand Prix in Tianjin, China, has not been nominated and was one of the four fencers who appealed. Williams and two other sabre fencers, James Honeybone and Louise Bond-Williams, who have also been selected but have more competitive rankings, train at Truro Fencing Club. They are coached here by Jon Salfield, who is also the national sabre coach. The fencing club is considered one of the sports centres of excellence
and is part-funded by Williams s father, Jon. His company also sponsors an annual sabre-fencing competition in Newquay. The other three who appealed were Chrystal] Nicoll, Alex O'Connell, both sabre fencers, and Jon Willis, Britain's No 1 epee fencer. All train at clubs other than Truro. But it is the nomination of Williams and not Hutchison that has caused uproar among the board of directors of British Fencing, members and fencers. Four directors are understood to be stepping down in October. The selection process is particularly difficult because only two fencers, Richard Kruse and Natalia Sheppard, have qualified for the Olympics by right, meaning that every other fencer needed one of the eight host-nation places awarded to Great Britain.

Despite British Fencing's nominations being discretionary, the fencers who appealed claimed that the process was biased, because Salfield operates as both the national coach and the Truro fencing coach. British Fencing had also appointed a five-man independent Olympic selection panel to nominate the fencers for the host-nation places for the process to be seen to be fair. But the fencers who appealed claimed that there was a conflict of interest because of an alleged business relationship between Alex Newton, Team GB s performance manager, and two members of the panel. British Fencing maintained that there was no conflict of interest and that the process was not biased because Salfield had not participated in the nominations process. David King, a director of British Fencing, also rejected the allegation that Williams had bought his daughter an Olympic nomination. He said the only payment Williams had made to the governing body was his membership fee. He warned that the dispute jeopardized all eight fencing host-nation places. "There's a risk the BOA will say “You know we will give the places to someone else" . The independent Olympic selection panel met again yesterday afternoon after the appeals were dismissed and will submit the eight nominations to the BOA before this morning's deadline. The BOA is due to announce the British Fencing team tomorrow. Williams, who was in Gloucester last week when his daughter was carrying the Olympic Torch, also responded to the allegation he had bought his daughter her nomination. He said he had not made payments to British Fencing but to Truro Fencing Club. Salfield declined to return calls. The Team GB fencing team receive a comparatively modest 2.52 million from UK Sport for the four-year Olympic cycle. They rely heavily on the 1 million sponsorship deal with Beazley. The insurance company, that they secured in January and the largesse parents to support fencers.

fenderstrat
-30th May 2012, 09:20
Thanks for posting that, Aussie.

But, good grief, eh?

J4G
-30th May 2012, 09:29
996

I couldn't upload the PDF so did it as an image

Peaseblossom
-30th May 2012, 09:29
Thank you. Have PM-ed you


I frankly don't know about the board minutes, as I was looking for them at 7 this morning and saw nothing for 2012. I can assure you they were not removed for any nefarious reason, but I will find out what the problem is.

We will have a full response to the Times article shortly.

The appeals report covers quite a lot of the selection process, but will address with Piers and Alex and come back.

hokers
-30th May 2012, 09:33
From Today’s Times*

One of eight fencers nominated for a host nation wild-card place is the daughter of a leading sponsor of the sport who has been accused in a letter shown to The Times, of effectively buying an Olympic place ''
The fencing club is considered one of the sports centres of excellence
and is part-funded by Williams s father, Jon. His company also sponsors an annual sabre-fencing competition in Newquay.

David King, a director of British Fencing, also rejected the allegation that Williams had bought his daughter an Olympic nomination. He said the only payment Williams had made to the governing body was his membership fee.
Williams, who was in Gloucester last week when his daughter was carrying the Olympic Torch, also responded to the allegation he had bought his daughter her nomination. He said he had not made payments to British Fencing but to Truro Fencing Club.

Let's put this bit to bed straight away.
I'm about to disagree very strongly with Sophie's selection, but the allegation of corruption has no basis so far on the evidence presented (writing before report published).
Sophie's own results put her into the category of being eligible for selection on the basis of being within the top 45 eligible fencers in the World. She has benefited, as have other british fencers from the work being done at Truro, which has been part sponsored by her father, among many other sponsors. That they took that initiative and made that effort is something to be commended. Once she is eligible for nomination, it's all about the decisions made (or advice given) by the PD, PT and PAG. There's no evidence so far that any money, or the promise of future money has been a factor in that decision. I very much think it's the wrong decision, but we need to make damn sure that we make only assertions based on evidence, who would want fencing to be associated with corruption without evidence?

JackSparrow
-30th May 2012, 09:37
Current FIE ranking points:

Joanna Hutchison - 39 pts
Chrystall Nicoll - 30 pts
Louise Bond-Williams - 26pts
Sophie Williams - 21 pts

Red
-30th May 2012, 09:40
Points today don't matter. What were the points at the selection day?

hamsandwich
-30th May 2012, 09:41
We will publish the Appeals report at 10am

Why say this and then not deliver?
Surely you would have been aware of any issues that would delay publication before posting this promise?

Threestain
-30th May 2012, 09:43
Sadly, as with everything it is not about whether or not there is any dodgy dealing.

Things must be SEEN to be above board. That cannot be done without clear appropriate publication, especially over contentious decisions. To do anything otherwise is absolute madness.

When dealing with patriotism and public money you have to be very careful.

I have no doubt the appropriate procedures were all followed and everyone acted in good faith, but even I would like to know (redacted) outcomes. Those who are disgruntled (or worse) in any way need to have proper information which they can share.

JackSparrow
-30th May 2012, 09:47
Points today don't matter. What were the points at the selection day?

Points clearly didn't matter on the selection day either. In the words of Paul Kelso in todays Telegraph:

"Usually Olympic selection is primarily a question of performance judged on clear, objective results. That is not the case when many host-nation places are effectively discretionary, awarded on the basis of subjective measures of potential as well as performance."

Hansei
-30th May 2012, 09:49
Sadly, as with everything it is not about whether or not there is any dodgy dealing.

Things must be SEEN to be above board. That cannot be done without clear appropriate publication, especially over contentious decisions. To do anything otherwise is absolute madness.

When dealing with patriotism and public money you have to be very careful.

I have no doubt the appropriate procedures were all followed and everyone acted in good faith, but even I would like to know (redacted) outcomes. Those who are disgruntled (or worse) in any way need to have proper information which they can share.

Totally agree. And, to that end, I still can't see anything new on the BF website - not great when it was promised nearly an hour ago.

fenderstrat
-30th May 2012, 09:49
Well said. I sense fireworks smouldering but hope for the sand bucket of transparency. Also better use of English.

Red
-30th May 2012, 09:50
Journalists are journalists.
Before stating that rankings were completely disregarded, do you have the ranking after Bologna?

hokers
-30th May 2012, 09:52
Points today don't matter. What were the points at the selection day?

What exactly was the selection day?
Rule 11a says you have to have been in the top 50 between 1/4/10 and 9/5/12
Rule 11b says you have to be in the top 45 eligible fencers on 1/4/12.
From Nahouw
24th April (http://www.nahouw.net/page/rnk_lst/rls_id/4/rrl_id/7798/)
23rd March (http://www.nahouw.net/page/rnk_lst/rls_id/4/rrl_id/7669/)

Red
-30th May 2012, 09:59
I've not been especially interested in the process, so I haven't studied the selection document in any great detail before today.
I'm reading it as absolute top 50 by 9/5/12 (so after Bologna) or top 45 on the adjusted ranking on 1/4/12. The post-Bologna ranking doesn't appear to exist on nahouw, hence the question.

dtd
-30th May 2012, 10:01
The TeamGB website shows the badminton team selection - announced at 10.00 am.

Is this ominous for a fencing selection announcement today?

coach carson
-30th May 2012, 10:02
Jo Hutch is our best and most in form WS. Something is wrong somewhere.

hokers
-30th May 2012, 10:05
Points clearly didn't matter on the selection day either. In the words of Paul Kelso in todays Telegraph:

"Usually Olympic selection is primarily a question of performance judged on clear, objective results. That is not the case when many host-nation places are effectively discretionary, awarded on the basis of subjective measures of potential as well as performance."

See, I like the sentiment expressed here, but I think it's a bit long-winded. Maybe it could be condensed to some sort of three-word slogan? Any ideas?

Highlander
-30th May 2012, 10:08
It should just be the top ranked fencers selected.
Anything else is corruptible and open to impropriety.

This selection process by BFA may well lose us the discretionary places which should of course be the end of the current board.
and all those in the selection panels.

Red
-30th May 2012, 10:14
Highlander,

If the Times article has got some facts correct, then it appears that Louise (level on points with Jojo) and James were top ranked on the FIE ranking lists.
Jon is also top ranked in ME, but it isn't yet clear that any ME fencer has been selected.

Australian
-30th May 2012, 10:17
http://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/news.asp?itemid=1933&itemTitle=British+Fencing+Olympic+selection+appeal +decision&section=23&sectionTitle=News

Miss_P
-30th May 2012, 10:17
"Points today don't matter. What were the points at the selection day?" (Quotes don't work on my phone)

Forget selection day, what are the points in May 2016? The panel obviously knows....

peredemadstar
-30th May 2012, 10:19
The appeals have been dismissed

dtd
-30th May 2012, 10:21
The appeals have been dismissed

omg! unbelievable.

HelenC
-30th May 2012, 10:29
An extract from the appeal hearing:-

The role of Jon Salfield in the sabre nominations
27. This is the aspect of the case which has given the appeal panel the greatest concern. Jon Salfield did play an important role in shaping the recommendations made by the Performance Team in relation to the sabre nominations. It is the case that at the Performance Team meeting Jon Salfield declared, as was probably already known to all present, that he was the personal coach of three of the sabre candidates and a member of the same fencing club. But he was on the performance team as national coach for sabre, and it was he who took the meeting through the form, rankings and performance trajectories of each sabre candidate. It is said that he was very careful to ensure that the points in favour of each fencer were properly made, but this does not entirely meet the point of the potential for unconscious bias on the part of a person who was the personal coach to three of the candidates at the same fencing club. It is true that he left the room to allow the rest of the team to consider its views, in order to avoid the apparent conflict of interest inherent in his position, but that was after he had laid out his interpretation of the performance data. Statements as to performance trajectories involve a considerable measure of expert interpretation and judgement. Although there may have been some others with sabre experience at the

meeting it does not appear that there was anyone else on the performance team who could challenge Jon Salfield’s expertise in sabre, and thus his interpretation of past performance and the advice implicit in that interpretation.

And


However the role of the appeal panel is confined to issues of fairness in the selection process. We have concluded that the role of Jon Salfield did not make the process as a whole unfair. The conflict of interest was declared and known to the selectors. It was for the selectors to make the judgement as to whether the recommendations made as to sabre nominations were soundly based. The minutes of the selectors’ meeting shows that over a period of about three hours careful consideration was given to the conflicting considerations. Both the Performance Advisory Group and the selectors acted as a check on the recommendations of the Performance Team, so that it cannot be said that it was Jon Salfield’s decision that the nominations should not include any of the appellants. The responsibility for the ultimate decisions lies on the selectors who acted on the basis of the information and recommendations conveyed from the Performance Team and the Performance Advisory Group by Alex Newton.

Helen.

TBennett
-30th May 2012, 10:31
http://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/news.asp?itemid=1933&itemTitle=British+Fencing+Olympic+selection+appeal +decision&section=23&sectionTitle=News

That document s a bit of a headache...

hokers
-30th May 2012, 10:36
http://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/news.asp?itemid=1933&itemTitle=British+Fencing+Olympic+selection+appeal +decision&section=23&sectionTitle=News

This is interesting reading.
Charles Flint QC for the appeals panel basically says that the process was followed therefore there is no basis for granting the appeals, but he expresses some concern about the selection policy in general as well as the process, timings etc. The only thing they are genuinely not happy about is the presentation/interpretation of the performance results by JS, particularly


The raw performance data that the selectors had been given would not be a basis for any informed judgment by a person without technical knowledge of the different fencing disciplines. Thus everything depended on the oral presentation made at the meeting by the performance manager acting alone.

Those circumstances were not ideal and in the event the process has given rise to understandable concerns on the part of the appellants that the basis for the sabre nominations made by the Performance Team, and then adopted without change by the Performance Advisory Group, was not adequately tested and independently challenged.

He goes on to say that:

There are complaints about the manner in which that data was interpreted, both favourably to other candidates and adversely to the appellants, but that is no ground on which this panel could interfere with the expert judgements made at various stages of the process.

We should point out that he has demonstrably recognised and declared some conflict of interest (personal coach of the fencers) here and left the room during the selection discussion to avoid unduly influencing them.

Hansei
-30th May 2012, 10:38
( Para. 28) One risk inherent in the selection policy laid down by British Fencing is that the decision is ultimately taken by selectors who are wholly independent but also removed from first hand knowledge of the technicalities of the different fencing disciplines and thus not in a good position to make any judgement as to comparative performance. The integrity of the decision making process thus depends critically on the role of the performance manager in faithfully relaying the advice of the experts on the Performance Team and the Performance Advisory Group, with all the limitations and reservations applying to that advice


(Para. 30) It is understandable that the selectors were not given minutes of the Performance Advisory Group, for that meeting had only taken place in the morning of the same day, and for the same reason the selectors could not have been given any time to consider the actual nominations in advance of their meeting. The raw performance data that the selectors had been given would not be a basis for any informed judgment by a person without technical knowledge of the different fencing disciplines. Thus everything depended on the oral presentation made at the meeting by the performance manager acting alone. Those circumstances were not ideal and in the event the process has given rise to understandable concerns on the part of the appellants that the basis for the sabre nominations made by the Performance Team, and then adopted without change by the Performance Advisory Group, was not adequately tested and independently challenged.

(Emphasis is my own.)

Some concerns raised in these two sections that have been exhaustively commented on before by members of the forum.

Personally, I think the process is fatally weakened by its reliance on Alex Newton as the link between the performance advisors/management group and the selectors.

As said many times before, the lack of fencing expertise or, perhaps more accurately, the narrowness of the fencing expertise (only a handful of people) appears also to have been a major flaw in the process.

Ronald Velden
-30th May 2012, 10:38
Okay let's deal with some of the matters raised.

BRITISH FENCING

I believe that they have missed one notable member of PAG Committee and that is Louise Bond-Williams who
is I believe fencer's representative. She was not in meeting, but was copied into advanced paper work of selection meeting.

TIMES NEWSPAPER

I have not seen article but it has been read to me. I was approached on Monday last week but refused to comment, as indeed did several others involved in process. I did not like anonymous letters particularly those
with scurrulous and unsubstantiated allegations. I am surprised by some of statements in article, because as
I have said the appeal which is based exclusively on procedural matters was private and bound by confidentiality apart from conclusion and decision.

THE SELECTION

i have not seen yet the announcement or publication of names, but when I do I will comment on the performance data which has been compiled and not fully disclosed to PAG panel. This was not allowed at
appeal and is therefore is not subject to confidentiality. For record Jo Hutchison's performance in terms of
results and FIE points in 2012 at selection date exceeds the combined total of 3 sabre fencers [1 boy and 2 girls] who have been selected. Her performance level as of today's date is the second best on FIE ranking
behind Richard Kruse and third best behind RK and James Davis on points. Her total points score in 2012 exceeds the total points score of the 6 fencers awarded discretionary places in weapons apart from mens foil and none of the fencers offered discretionary places apart from Mens Foil and Louise Bond-Williams has managed in 2012 a result better than last 64. This compares with Hutchison who has produced 2 x L16,1 x L32 and 3 x L64.

That says it all.

ELLEN PRES

The answer to your comments is yes I do know what is going on. I was asked to help with one appeal and the
other appellants, coaches and even a parent have contacted me. Also I have had some communication with
some members on PAG committee as well.Therefore I am quite well acquainted with facts.

dtd
-30th May 2012, 10:38
Another extract:

On 10th May there was a meeting of the selectors. The selection panel consisted of Daniel Saoul, the non-voting chairman, Derek Mapp, Dominic Mahony and Philip Kimberley, who attended by telephone. Of the selectors only Mr. Mahony had any fencing expertise.

This really concerns me.

Next to Nothing
-30th May 2012, 10:39
Hi all, I have been regularly browsing the forum, but never really felt inclined to post something, which has just changed.
What are the Olympics about?
From what I read in this forum it revolves about Coubertin's "The most important thing is not to win but to take part", which has become the non-official Olympic motto for those who fail to succeed.
Being the host nation, this is all fair enough, however, I would prefer to see medals. And I want to send those who stand the greatest chance of securing one.
This might come as a surprise, but often, it is not the most consistently mediocre athletes who do. And looking at the scores of those who are deemed better than the ones who apparently got the nomination, that is exactly their problem. They perform consistently ok, but fail when it gets interesting. As I said before, I would rather give those with a potential to succeed all the way a shot, than to those who are alright performers and score a few points here and there.
For, the actual Olympic motto is "swifter, higher, stronger'".

Threestain
-30th May 2012, 10:41
interestingly frank and proper dissection of the selection process.

essentially in my mind it equates to not fit for purpose and should be revised for next time.

Carte Noire
-30th May 2012, 10:44
Having waded through the document...

Somewhat startled that of 4 selectors only one had a fencing background. This may have been more widely known but it's the first I'd heard of it. (Conspiracists please note: I am not suggesting a cover up, but simply stating that I was not aware of the composition of the selection panel. However, not being directly involved with them in any way and having never looked for this information this is perhaps not surprising!)

There are a number of criticisms of the process, notably with regard to Jon Salfield's role in it and the communication of his conflicts of interest. Although these were ruled to not be grounds to dismiss the appeal they do reflect badly on the process followed by BF.

A good point is that these decisions can only be published if both appellants and respondents agree so even though parts of it reflect badly on BF they have stuck by their commitment to transparency by agreeing to the publication of the decision. If this is followed up as promised by Alex Newton giving her reasoning behind her selection reccomendations then I feel that, in comparison to Taekwondo, we will have done well on this score.

Miss_P
-30th May 2012, 11:00
I wonder whether SRUK are feeling they were given sufficient information on the full extent of the sabre coach‘s other potential areas of conflicts which is being played out in the press.

Carte Noire
-30th May 2012, 11:04
Now we know four of the names that did not make the team I have no doubt that many people are all ready gearing up to dismiss the process that failed to select them, in particular regarding JH.

But let me throw a thought in here.

Imagine that at the games all the british fencers selected are so lifted by the crowd that the team produces an out-of-this-world performance and wins every medal possible.

Unlikely in the extreme but not impossible (statistically).

Now imagine a toned down version where maybe one or possibly two fencers achieve bronze medals. This would still be our best olympics since 1964.

Possible if perhaps still somewhat unlikely.

BUT

If either case above or anything in between happened will anyone look beyond congratulating the athlete/s and coach/es etc responsible and say "good job" to the selectors?

I hope that anyone who criticises (I do not count those who made an appeal to be criticising the selection but the process hence I exclude them from what follows) the selection of one athlete over another on performance grounds, including rankings, will have the decency to retract their complaints in public IF the team justifies their selection with results.

If not, then the AGM is in October.

Still no statement from BOA yet though...

Tubby
-30th May 2012, 11:06
Can someone facebook me the Men's foil team. Cheers.

British Fencing
-30th May 2012, 11:06
PRESS RELEASE: 29th May 2012

BRITISH FENCING RESPONDS TO ARTICLE IN THE TIMES

Fully Transparent & Robust Selection Protocol Followed for Selection of Host Nation Places

British Fencing wish to respond to the recent allegations made by The Times regarding the selection process for the nominations of its host nation places for the London Olympic Games. This release is intended to lay out the clear facts whilst the organisation makes decisions on how and whether to respond further to these allegations. The facts are as follows:-

1) British Fencing has never had any financial dealings or financial relationship with Jon Williams other than accepting £40 in membership fees from Mr. Williams. We have offered to The Times to back that statement up with financial records that will prove that statement to be true.

2) Funding provided by British Fencing to the Truro Fencing Centre to support the club as a national performance centre and to Jon Salfield as National Sabre Coach, comes from UK Sport and our sponsors and, as such, is subject to audit and a high level of scrutiny as one would expect when receiving public funds.

3) During the process of selecting fencers for our London 2012 Olympic squad, members of the performance advisory group and independent selection body - both created to provide transparency and fairness in the selection process - were required to declare any conflict of interest and excuse themselves when conflicts occurred. In the case of selection of sabre fencers, Jon Salfield presented the relevant information about the candidates, declared his interest and left the room and was not present for the selection - or non selection - of prospective Olympic athletes. An independent appeals panel looked into this matter and found there was no evidence of bias due to his involvement, and that numerous checks and balances existed to ensure fairness. We have offered to provide The Times with minutes of the selection meeting that will show this to be the case.

4) Our selection process has the full approval, support and participation of the BOA and UK Sport and involves sports professionals from outside of fencing to ensure that our selection procedures are clear and that the athletes are given a fair and transparent process. The athletes themselves signed up to this process.

5) As a part of an ongoing restructure of the board of directors, it has already been determined that 8 British Fencing directors will stand down in tranches of 4 beginning in October. This has been openly communicated and has absolutely no relation to a suggested ‘uproar among the board’ about the selection process.

As a result of the appeals process, our selection process has been supported by an adjudication body from Sports Resolutions chaired by Charles Flint QC. This report can be found here:

http://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/news.asp?section=23&sectionTitle=British%20Fencing%20Olympic%20selecti on%20appeal%20decision&itemid=1933

Actual selection of our athletes for London 2012 is dependent upon approval from the BOA.

A story like this which is not only factually incorrect but wrong on so many fronts puts our athletes at a severe disadvantage going into what should be a great moment for our sport of fencing in Britain.

Prior to The Times printing this story they were sent a clear statement which follows:-

“We hope you will consider our position before putting us as an organisation and our supporters in a place where we have to defend ourselves from baseless, potentially libellous and factually incorrect charges from what we believe to be an anonymous source.”

This information was provided to The Times ahead of their decision to print their story on 30th May 2012. British Fencing was not given the opportunity to see the written allegations in advance of the story’s publication, nor were we given the name of the person or persons who made the allegations. British Fencing will not make any further comments on this matter until the BOA announces the fencers who will compete for Team GB at the London Olympic Games.

END -----------------------------------------
For further information please contact Karim Bashir on 07855 252 546 or media@britishfencing.com.
Catch Sport, working in partnership on communications with British Fencing.

Carte Noire
-30th May 2012, 11:07
Also nothing on the BF web page about the appeal. I'm sure we were told that details and a statement would appear there...

Carte Noire
-30th May 2012, 11:07
Ah. Please disregard my previous. It crossed in cyberspace with the statement from BF!

Jacdaw
-30th May 2012, 11:13
Just clearing up (As i'm abit slow), are we waiting to know who has been selected? Or waiting to see whether the appeals have been excepted?
I'm abit lost at the moment.

Red
-30th May 2012, 11:15
Waiting for the BOA to announce the selected fencers.

hokers
-30th May 2012, 11:16
PRESS RELEASE: 29th May 2012

BRITISH FENCING RESPONDS TO ARTICLE IN THE TIMES

Fully Transparent

Can we have the minutes of the meetings in that case please? In the interests of full transparency?



4) Our selection process has the full approval, support and participation of the BOA and UK Sport and involves sports professionals from outside of fencing to ensure that our selection procedures are clear and that the athletes are given a fair and transparent process. The athletes themselves signed up to this process.

Signed up, or were required to sign up if they wished to be considered?



As a result of the appeals process, our selection process has been supported by an adjudication body from Sports Resolutions chaired by Charles Flint QC.

Supported is REALLY not the right word here, you can say the appeals were not upheld, but from reading the report it doesn't sound like the adjudication body is supportive of the process.




Prior to The Times printing this story they were sent a clear statement which follows:-
“We hope you will consider our position before putting us as an organisation and our supporters in a place where we have to defend ourselves from baseless, potentially libellous and factually incorrect charges from what we believe to be an anonymous source.”

This information was provided to The Times ahead of their decision to print their story on 30th May 2012. British Fencing was not given the opportunity to see the written allegations in advance of the story’s publication, nor were we given the name of the person or persons who made the allegations. British Fencing will not make any further comments on this matter until the BOA announces the fencers who will compete for Team GB at the London Olympic Games.

Nor should you expect to get that name, journalistic privilege is a founding principle of a democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

Everything else seems a reasonable response to me.

Ronald Velden
-30th May 2012, 11:18
British Fencing

I am shocked by your press release. Can you please advise when Truro FC was made a National Performance Centre and started receiving UK Funding.

I have no recollection of this being ever announced or published on BFA website or anywhere else. More importantly has this information been disclosed to other sabreurs who are training at other clubs?

This is yet another example of British Fencing's total lack of transparency.

Mr WFFC
-30th May 2012, 11:26
So, if the nominations have been made and the appeals have been heard and not upheld, why are we still waiting for the names to be announced by the BOA?

Miss_P
-30th May 2012, 11:27
PRESS RELEASE: 29th May 2012

BRITISH FENCING RESPONDS TO ARTICLE

3) During the process of selecting fencers for our London 2012 Olympic squad, members of the performance advisory group and independent selection body - both created to provide transparency and fairness in the selection process - were required to declare any conflict of interest and excuse themselves when conflicts occurred. In the case of selection of sabre fencers, Jon Salfield presented the relevant information about the candidates, declared his interest and left the room and was not present for the selection - or non selection - of prospective Olympic athletes. Are you able to clarify what the extent of the declaration of potential conflict of interest was? Was it only to being the coach?

dtd
-30th May 2012, 11:28
Still no team announcement that I can see.

I would suspect that the BOA are revisiting the decisions, especially in light of The Times article. Allegations of corruption are very serious, whether unfounded or not. It is not a good PR day for British Fencing.

I feel sorry for the damage this is doing to the sport and the public's perception of how it is run.

Mr WFFC
-30th May 2012, 11:31
Agreed. I just posted this on facebook:

It's a very bad piece of journalism, poorly researched and factually incorrect. I may not agree with the Olympic selections or selection process, but this story can do nothing but harm our sport.

mikey
-30th May 2012, 11:32
Are you able to clarify what the extent of the declaration of potential conflict of interest was? Was it only to being the coach?

What other conflict of interest is there?

peredemadstar
-30th May 2012, 11:35
Are you able to clarify what the extent of the declaration of potential conflict of interest was? Was it only to being the coach?

This is dealt with in the appeal decision - see the various messages above for a link.

I'd like to know which other clubs or "fencing centres" are National Performance Centres and receive UK Sport funding for whichever weapon.

pavski
-30th May 2012, 11:39
Well its sounds like the agm in October is gonna be a corker. I'll have to book a date in my diary.

Mini Musketeer
-30th May 2012, 11:40
Can someone clarify if the standing down of 8 directors mentioned in the press release is correct ?

I thought it was to be changed at the EGM

n_freebody
-30th May 2012, 11:41
Forgive me if Im wrong but this thread is titled 'Guess the Wildcards' not 'BFA policies and transparency issues'. I realise conversations evolve but surely there must be a better more informed way of having this disscusion.

I just feel sorry for all the fencers wether selected or not. I cant imagine how it must feel to all the fencers apealing knowing that everything they have been working and hopeing towards has been denied to them. However Imagine how it must feel to the fencers who have been successful but are at risk of having it snatched away from them at the last minute due to a sucessful appeal. Finally I also feel sorry for the people being accused personally. I have no idea if they acted dubiously or not (I am trying my best to ignore the articles in the papers due to a lack of factual evidence) but it cant be nice having personal attacks like that. People just love to hate and complain I suppose.

I just hope the announcement is made soon.

*prepares for people to start pulling apart this post*

Andy
-30th May 2012, 11:43
Just a quick Q.

We are still waiting for the BOA announcment about the 4 non Foil host places arn't we???
I thought the foil places were not due for a bit. BUT that we had announced that we are sending Foil teams for Men and Women, and have qualified 1 please in each already leaving 2 host placed required for each.

So that means that the 4 places we're waiting for are

Louise Bond-Williams
Sophie Williams
James Honeybone
Corrina Lawrence

Is this right??

n_freebody
-30th May 2012, 11:43
Just to be clear I think the individual selctions should have been made on a points basis. The best fencers should be the ones to go. Also is anyone else impressed by the number of people veiwing this right now. It must be some kind of record for the forum.

Jacdaw
-30th May 2012, 11:55
Just to be clear I think the individual selctions should have been made on a points basis. The best fencers should be the ones to go. Also is anyone else impressed by the number of people veiwing this right now. It must be some kind of record for the forum.
Viewers count are going down now :(

cesh_fencing
-30th May 2012, 11:56
I feel sorry for the damage this is doing to the sport and the public's perception of how it is run.

Do not think this is doing any damage to the grass-roots of the sport, just raises issues with the selection procedures and the way it would appear that 'links to a club/training centres/specific coaches' may have affected selection.

Though not as blatent as the Taikwando, for those which good knowledge of fencing the whole selection process is what is really causing the damage as those who fence competitively want the fencers who clearly deserve selection to be selected.

I hope the BOA will raise issues on this whole matter and BF will change their position, if not for this event, for those going forward, however this is the key one for most of the fencers concerned.

hokers
-30th May 2012, 11:57
Just a quick Q.

We are still waiting for the BOA announcment about the 4 non Foil host places arn't we???
I thought the foil places were not due for a bit. BUT that we had announced that we are sending Foil teams for Men and Women, and have qualified 1 please in each already leaving 2 host placed required for each.

So that means that the 4 places we're waiting for are

Louise Bond-Williams
Sophie Williams
James Honeybone
Corrina Lawrence

Is this right??

Well, the only other people in the frame that didn't appeal are Phil Marsh (medium likely) and Georgina Usher (quite unlikely) so I don't think this is an absolute guarantee, though we do know from the appeals report that 3 Truro sabreurs have been selected.
It would be a big surprise though if CL had not been selected and not appealed, so I think you're fairly safe with your suggestion there, just waiting for it to become official. It's just possible that they didn't select WFT and would put Phil and Georgina in, but not very likely.

Andy
-30th May 2012, 12:10
I wasns't guessing at selections, I was asking if that's all we were waiting for with the BOA..

I think if you read around all those have been mentioned as selected.

A.

Muzwa
-30th May 2012, 12:13
Just a quick Q.

We are still waiting for the BOA announcment about the 4 non Foil host places arn't we???
I thought the foil places were not due for a bit. BUT that we had announced that we are sending Foil teams for Men and Women, and have qualified 1 please in each already leaving 2 host placed required for each.

So that means that the 4 places we're waiting for are

Louise Bond-Williams
Sophie Williams
James Honeybone
Corrina Lawrence

Is this right??

If this is correct (and from the results of the appeals process quite likely) then that means Jo Hutchison and Chrystall Nicoll have been passed over for fencers lower than them on the FIE world rankings http://www.fie.ch/Competitions/Ranking.aspx
Can someone explain why they have chosen to select the two lower ranked fencers over the higher ranked ones if this is correct? I can't connect the dots with this one

Andy
-30th May 2012, 12:13
Can someone explain why they have chosen to select the two lower ranked fencers over the higher ranked ones if this is correct?

I think that's the point of the thread now...

A.
______________________________________________


Viewers count are going down now :(

I think the number is going up, just members are logging out to be anon :)

pcooper
-30th May 2012, 12:19
Another extract:

On 10th May there was a meeting of the selectors. The selection panel consisted of Daniel Saoul, the non-voting chairman, Derek Mapp, Dominic Mahony and Philip Kimberley, who attended by telephone. Of the selectors only Mr. Mahony had any fencing expertise.

This really concerns me.

Three voting selectors
Only two actually there (other one on the phone, I know how difficult participating in a meeting by phone can be)
Of those two, only one actually knows anything about fencing!!

says it all