Fairness, Equality and the Level Playing Field (the myths of elite sport)
Regardless of the sport, team selection is always a hot issue.
Whether it’s Quade Cooper’s non-inclusion in the Wallabies, or who should be wicket keeping for the Aussies during the Ashes – the final make-up of a team is often fiercely debated.
And so it is with equestrian teams. The biennial hullabaloo surrounding WEG and Olympic team selections has almost become an accepted part of the process. Just as someone once wrote that one of the true signs summer has arrived in Australia is when you hear your first blow fly of the season, talk of an appeal over team selection is an indication the Games are upon us.
The debate is often focused on whether the decision was ‘fair’ and if the team members ‘deserved’ their spot.
- Was the selection process fair?
- Is it fair that Roy Rogers* and Trigger* made the team?
- It’s not fair that the Lone Ranger* and Silver* didn’t make the team
- The Cisco Kid* and Diablo* deserved to make the team
The concept of fairness is something that is inherently important to Australians. The idea of giving people a fair go is said to be part of our make-up, it’s almost part of our DNA.
Even the all-powerful Wikipedia has a section on ‘a fair go’ under the heading Australian Culture.
A fair go was between ‘underdog identity’ and ‘cultural cringe.’
But selectors are not charged with selecting the team on basis of the fairest outcome, or even the most deserving team – their job is to pick the BEST team. The team they believe will produce the best performance for Australia on the world stage.
As different to the local under 13 netball team, where the youngsters may be selected due to consistent attendance at training or simply because it’s their turn to play a full game (although Cricket Australia does seem to dabble with the latter with its controversial rotation policy), such concessions are not available to national selectors when it comes to WEG and Olympic Games.
That’s not to say that everything possible isn’t done to make the selection process fair – of course it is. But what if, in an attempt to be ‘fair’, we inhibit the process of selecting the best team? Because let’s face it, the concept of complete fairness, or the ‘level playing field’, is in fact a utopia.
Invariably someone will have:
- more talent as a rider
- a more talented horse(s)
- a bigger bank balance
- better training facilities
- better work ethic
There are endless permutations of advantages that some riders have over others, that make the level playing field as relevant as the flat earth theory. And furthermore, trying to create it can sometimes dumb down the whole process.
The idea of bringing someone back to the field, again, is intrinsically Aussie.
Possibly the best example is the race that stops a nation, the Melbourne Cup – a handicap event. While purists will tell you the weight for age WS Cox Plate is the ultimate prize in Australian racing, the general public is infatuated by the Melbourne Cup – a race where the favourite carries the most weight so lesser fancied rivals (in some cases, ‘underdogs’) have a chance to win.
So how does this translate to selection?
Take the scenario of a rider who has more than one horse eligible for selection. How do we make that fair to the riders who have only one horse?
It’s simple. We add a clause to the selection policy that says ‘at the selection event, the rider will nominate which horse he / she will put forward for selection.’ Sorted.
Except of course, if the non-nominated horse wins the selection event, while the nominated horse puts in a weaker performance.
Is it just a case of too bad, so sad – you nominated the wrong horse? Or do we want that winning horse / rider combination on the team?
While Swimming Australia may have the luxury (due to Australia’s depth of talent) of giving swimmers a single opportunity to make the team, in equestrian (particularly dressage and jumping) we don’t.
When Samantha Riley underperformed at the selection trials for the Sydney Olympics after spending seven days in hospital with a kidney infection, many people felt it was unfair she wasn’t given another opportunity to make the team. Surely she deserved a chance to finish her career in front of a home crowd? Her place on the team was taken by 14-year-old Leisel Jones, who went on to claim individual silver at the Games a couple of weeks after turning 15. Not a bad replacement.
Prior to the London Olympics, Australian steeplechaser Genevieve LaCaze become embroiled in a selection controversy when she ran an ‘A qualifying time’ in the US a day after Athletics Australia’s self- imposed qualification deadline.
The high performance manager for Athletics Australia, Eric Hollingsworth, was quoted by Fairfax Media as saying: ‘The bottom line is the qualifying line is set and she should not be nominated. It needs no more complication that that. All the emotional stuff needs to be taken out, otherwise it is not fair to the other hundreds of athletes who have complied with the deadline that was set.’
There’s that word again, FAIR.
Now keep in mind, Genevieve’s inclusion would not have put another Australian athlete out of the team, there was no other qualified Aussie in her event – but still, Athletics Australia felt that it wasn’t fair to extend the deadline for her.
In the end, pressure from AOC boss John Coates saw the decision reversed and LaCaze competed in London.
The issue of team selection is a vexed one. Trying to keep the process as simple as possible is desirable for all concerned, however, the myriad ‘what if’ scenarios that need to be taken into account can invariably muddy the waters. Like many of our so-called ‘First World problems’, the legal implications are far reaching, and can often hijack the whole affair.
When, during the appeals process, barristers start arguing over the wording of the selection policy, to the extent that ‘may’ can sometimes mean ‘must’, but does that mean that ‘must’ can sometimes mean ‘may’, you do have to wonder what it all has to do with selecting the best team to represent Australia.
*not their real names – examples only