Terry Maddaford: It's as easy as one, two, three

COMMENT

The days of rattling the bucket for money to send "B category" athletes to Olympic and Commonwealth Games are, thankfully, gone.

But still with us are the controversies which have long dogged New Zealand team selections.

This week's stand-off, which left Yachting New Zealand wiping messy egg off its face, might have been avoided if it had not highlighted "the expectation of a top-10 finish" in its selection criteria.

The provision was included in the national Olympic committee's selection policy for all sports, which was made public two years ago.

By reiterating this proviso at the time of the trials, Yachting New Zealand set itself up for the challenges it then faced. And lost.

While other sports remain confident they have their selection policies in order - although aggrieved oarsmen Rob Hellstrom and Ian Smallman still have time to appeal - and do not expect such challenges, the broader selection issue remains.

Considering yachting's success at the past five Olympics - eight top-10 finishes (and an 11th) from 11 crews in Sydney, five from 10 in Atlanta, 10 from 10 in Barcelona, seven from seven in Seoul and four (and an 11th) from six in Los Angeles - it could have stuck with its first-past-the-post selections.

No other New Zealand Olympic sport can boast such a record.

The need to complicate the selection process was surely unnecessary, even if Yachting New Zealand did have concerns over falling numbers in some traditional Olympic classes.

In the United States, where track and field athletes dominate in a way similar to New Zealand yachtsmen and women, the selection process has no fishhooks.

One, two and three at the trials pack their bags and prepare for the bigger stage.

No ifs or maybes.

There must remain the provision for change to the selection policy, but no one, surely, foresaw the situation the Sports Disputes Tribunal had to deal with this week.

Until 1984 the team was selected by a three-member panel which then had its selections rubber-stamped by the New Zealand Olympic and Commonwealth Games executive committee.

The team was then, in much the same way as old All Blacks team announcements, read out usually on a Tuesday night.

End of story. Pack your bags for the Olympic Games.

In recent times, selection and announcement has largely been a sport-by-sport process, with each sport formulating its own selection criteria.

This year, the sports will make "nominations", which will be vetted by the three-man selection panel of Bruce Cameron, Mike Stanley and Barry Maister.

If the sports have been honest with themselves and have not varied too far from the criteria they laid down, the three wise men should again rubber-stamp such selections.

For sports with a finite standard - track and field, swimming and weightlifting spring to mind - it should be a relatively simple task.

The only point of contention will be when an athlete attains a B standard too far removed from the A target and obviously one not likely to reach the "top 16" rule of thumb used by the selection panel.

A number of sports - and rowing and yachting may come into this category - often set their sights far higher, perhaps top eight or 10 - ensuring automatic selection.

In other sports with more subjective criteria it is not as simple.

The team for Athens will, as a matter of course, be smaller than the big representation in Sydney - the closest we will ever get to a home Games. But, will smaller mean better?

We again must ask why the selection of a Games team has been turned into a complicated, drawn-out legal minefield when all we want is to see our very best at their competitive best on the highest international sporting stage.