South Africa’s 1996 athletic achievements came about largely despite, rather than because of, the country’s athletics administration
Athletics: Julian Drew
Looking back on 1996, one might be inclined to regard it as a particularly successful year for the sport of athletics in South Africa. Gold and silver both bore the South African hallmark at the Centennial Olympic Games, while two silvers and a bronze at the world junior championships, a fifth place in the world cross country championships and victory at the Beppu and Berlin marathons further embellished the record.
Such honours reflect a reasonable impression at the highest level of the sport. But the truth is that these achievements came about largely despite, rather than because of, the efforts of the current South African athletics administration.
The performance of the South African team as a whole in Atlanta was disappointing. Only four of the 23 athletes who finally travelled to Georgia reached the finals of their events and only two Hezekiel Sepeng and Arnaud Malherbe — set personal best performances.
Far too many were carrying injuries or were far below the form which saw them earn selection. In an age when the biomechanics of athletic performance are well-documented there can be few excuses for not peaking at the Olympic Games. And make no mistake, the ultimate goal of every single one of those athletes who wore the green and gold in Atlanta was to hit the biggest high of their lives.
To combat these rather pathetic statistics Athletics South Africa (ASA), in its infinite wisdom, has increased the qualifying standards for the world championships in Athens next year. Not surprisingly for an administration which has so flagrantly flouted the ethics of sport and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of the requirements of peak athletic performance, they have missed the point.
The reason the team performed so woefully in Atlanta is because the athletes had to compete too often during the South African season and were left with insufficient time to recover and prepare properly for the Olympic Games.
This was perfectly illustrated by three of the most successful athletes during the domestic season who then performed miserably in Atlanta. Adri de Jongh is the woman who resembled a turbo-charged piston engine earlier this year as she repeatedly carved huge chunks from her 200m and 400m personal bests.
She finished the South African season with a highly respectable — albeit run at altitude — 400m time of 50,73. But then the wheels came off. She didn’t even make it into the starting blocks at the Olympics after breaking down with a stress fracture at the pre-games holding camp. She watched the games on crutches with her coach — Stephane Kotze — ever brooding at her shoulder.
Marius van Heerden was left out of the Olympic training squad last October after indifferent form following injuries. With all three 800m spaces already booked, he had to do something special to try and dislodge somebody.
He succeeded in spectacular fashion by breaking the 25-year-old South African 800m record in April with a time of 1:44.57. That, unfortunately for Van Heerden, was not the ideal preparation for an Olympic Games starting three months later. In Atlanta he ran a below par 1 :47.46 in the first round and failed to advance.
At the beginning of 1996 Llewellyn Herbert was an unheralded 18-year-old. As his local campaign unfolded he became the brightest hurdling prospect in a decade. Over a period of two months he ran week-in, week-out, shattering record after record to finish the season as the third-fastest junior 400m hurdler in history with a time of 48.76.
Conventional wisdom told those who cared to listen that a senior athlete — let alone a junior — could not compete for that long, and at that level, and expect to peak again in three months time. Leave him out of the Olympic team, said the experts. Let him rather focus on the world junior championships, allowing a further month of preparation.
Predictably, Herbert was put to the sword in Atlanta by the uncomprehending selectors and he bombed out in the first round with a time of 51.13. Just for good measure he also failed to win the world junior title which was his for the taking. Don’t blame Herbert, though. The cause of his demise and most of the other Atlanta failures can be laid squarely in front of the same door.
The true irony of all this is that ASA were well aware of the dangers. Wilf Paish — who is one of the most respected coaches in the world and prepared five British teams for the Olympic Games — told them time and again. Paish was brought to South Africa a year before the Games by the National Olympic Committee and given the specific task of preparing the team for Atlanta. He requested the selection of an Olympic squad last October and asked that the squad members be allowed to peak at the Test match with Italy at the beginning of February before starting their training for Atlanta.
Even the peak for the Test was a compromise for Paish — he wanted only one peak in Atlanta — but he believed the five and a half months this would give the athletes to prepare for the Games was adequate. ASA agreed to his proposals but then began sending out confusing signals after February by saying nothing.
As the Test passed and the season rolled on, most of the athletes — uncertain as to what the Olympic qualifying criteria were — carried on competing right through to the national championships at the end of April. The results of this folly are recorded for posterity — but ASA have failed to heed the message.
Next year’s South African championships have been moved forwards to the first week in March and any athletes who win their chosen events and achieve the stringent ASA qualifying standards have been guaranteed a place in the team.
The catch is that these athletes must also compete in another four meetings over the tollowing month to be considered for the team. This leaves just four months to go back to basics and build up again for the August world championships. While this is better than last year it is still not enough.
The Australians — another southern hemisphere nation out of sync with the rest of the world and, more importantly, whose Institute of Sport is one of the most advanced in the world — end their season with their national championships in February. That is a model that South African athletics should emulate. In terms of major championships this could be complemented by trials for an elite squad — incorporated into an event like the British Trials a few weeks before the main event — if need be.
While ASA’s kneejerk reaction to the Atlanta debacle is bad enough, the way it was undertaken must make this country the laughing stock of world athletics. The ASA administration — which doesn’t even come close to matching the “B” standard in anybody’s books — saw fit to arbitrarily suck out of their thumbs a set of standards which are even stiffer than the “A” standard of the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF).
The apparent lack of any reasoned or scientific thought behind the establishment of these standards raises serious cause for concern. The affected athletes deserve an explanation.
In calculating its qualifying standards the IAAF applies carefully determined criteria. By studying the trends in the annual world ranking lists and matching these with the number of athletes they can accommodate in an event — along with specific characteristics for each event — they set an “A” and “B” standard qualifying mark. For an event such as the men’s 100m the “A” standard of 10.84 was good enough for only 123rd on the previous year’s world ranking list.
The “A” standard for the men’s high jump of 2,28m, however, would have placed an athlete in 35th place. Although this may seem unfair to a high jumper it can all be explained by the way an international athletics championships is structured. The 100m can accommodate ten or more heats of up to eight athletes — and with the United States boasting nearly a third of the world’s top-ranked sprinters but only able to enter three — the qualifying standard makes good sense when compared to the high jump which usually has two qualifying pools of around 16 athletes drawn from many different countries. Should ASA teel the need to tamper with the IAAF’s standards then to be fair to its athletes it should apply a consistent benchmark. This could be a fixed position on the world ranking lists — whether 20th, 50th or whatever.
To merely chop off an inconsistent and entirely random amount from the IAAF’s standards is simply not good enough. Is it fair to allow a male marathon runner to qualify with a time of 2:14 — good enough for only 148th on the 1995 world ranking list — while a 1500m athlete must run 3:33.00′? Only eight men beat 3:33.00 in 1995!
The women’s standards are even more difficult. To qualify for any event requires a performance that would have made at least the top fifty in the 1995 world ranking lists. The 400m hurdles time of 55.00 would have placed 10th while the most lenient 6,65m –for the long jump — would have been good enough for 44th place.
Fortunately there is a solution — even though belated — to this kind of ineptitude. Elections are to be held for ASA in April. It is up to every single registered athlete in South Atrica to stand up and be counted. They must ensure that the people their clubs nominate and vote for — and those their provinces susequently vote for — are men and women who understand and love the sport of athletics.
Only then will the athletes of this country be served by people who will put their needs first rather than by a group of politicians who hand out positions and overseas trips to those who pledge fealty to their unholy and incompetent cause.