National Champ Left in the Dark
Print version
Comment
E-mail This Article to a Friend
I am still scratching my head about David Sender's omission as at least an alternate to the U.S. Olympic team. He won the all-around and vault at the U.S. Championships in May, and dominated the "10-Point Program" that rewards individual event ranking. Sender amassed 66 points to runner-up Jonathan Horton's 55, yet somehow it was determined he couldn't help the team. When I asked USA Gymnastics why it overlooked Sender, who sprained his ankle and had to scratch from Olympic Trials, I received the following statement from Men's Program Director Dennis McIntyre: "USA Gymnastics and the men's program recognize the dedication, desire and accomplishments of every athlete who competed for the Olympic team. Each athlete and his coach has contributed to the program during the past few years, and it is never easy to tell anyone that he will not be a part of the Olympic team given the sacrifices and commitment demanded. Winning a team medal at the Olympic Games is our goal, and the priority is to compile a team that has the best chance for success in the 6-5-4 and 6-3-3 formats. The men's selection committee analyzed nearly 50 different team scoring scenarios and feels confident that the assembled team gives us our best opportunity to medal in Beijing."
OK, that's great. But what about Sender? "They decided that his scores from USAs didn't hold up," said Thom Glielmi, Sender's coach at Stanford. "I ran the numbers too, and it's like any statistical analysis. You can manipulate the numbers any way you want."
Sender, meanwhile, is left in the dark about why he was overlooked. "I wish I had an explanation, because it would at least make me feel better," he said.
I don't buy that "each athlete and his coach has contributed to the program during the past few years," as McIntyre claims, but Sender certainly did. He's been one of the most consistent gymnasts in the U.S. in this quadrennium, and went five-for-five at the 2006 World Championships. It wasn't his fault the team crumbled to 13th. He also tried to make the 2007 world team, which earned the U.S. men a team berth to Beijing. That can't be said for every member of the 2008 Olympic team.
"They didn't really tell us anything," Sender said about the final selection. "They told us that they took everything into account and they treated the injured individuals (Sender and Hamm) as if we were healthy. They told us it was probably 90 percent just on scores, and nothing else really came into it until that last 10 percent."
The priority of the USAG Men's Program of winning a medal is understandable, but at some point the athletes who strive to make that happen should be made to feel like more than a potential score on rings or vault. A certain human aspect is missing from the selection system. If you're going to sell tickets to a national championship, then show some respect to the guy who wins it. For that accomplishment alone, Sender should have been named one of the three alternates to Beijing.
Bad luck robbed Sender of the chance to improve his standing at the Olympic Trials, but he will always be the 2008 U.S. champion. "I would like to take some pride in that, but apparently that doesn't mean much anymore," he said.
Said Glielmi: "What's frustrating for the athletes and coaches, if you just look at the numbers, this is the one time where the numbers didn't work in his favor, and his past successes didn't carry any weight."
Random Trials Thoughts…
Yewki Tomita was breathtaking on pommel horse, parallel bars and high bar, though his father, Yoichi, told me the new Code is "not kind to 5-foot-9-inch gymnasts." If the Code indeed rewarded what it originally proposed — execution — Tomita would have scored much higher. Still, Tomita was the classiest gymnast in the field in terms of presentation.
Tomita and Sean Golden, each of whom did three events, combined for a strong six-event total. I could envision them on any six-man team, along with four balanced all-arounders.
Sean Townsend gamely landed his Dragulescu vault both days of trials, even though it was low. It was nice to see him stick his full-in dismount on floor, which was most likely his final competitive routine.
Joey Hagerty impressed me with his form and technique, and his consistency ultimately landed him on the team.
It was great to see Justin Spring, who tore his ACL last summer, tumble and vault with no brace or wrap on his knee. He really earned his spot on the team, although he said he didn't think he had a chance prior to trials.
Alternate Raj Bhavsar made a remarkable return to the all-around this year, and he hit every routine in Philadelphia. He also was able to light up a crowd like no other. "It's not something that I plan to do," he said. "It's just absolutely raw emotion coming out. That's who I am." I could have seen him on the team, no problem.
- U.S. Picks Men's Olympic Team
- Comaneci: No Question in Chinese Victory
- Ziert Alert: Alicia, It's Not Your Fault
- Chinese Women Claim First Olympic Team Title
- Pretty in Pink, Liukin Wins All-Around
Comments (10 posted):
I still feel badly for Raj as he was spectecular at trials - by far the crowd favorite, but I've come to realize that he didn't quite fill the holes that were needed to be filled. I hope the best for the mens team.
That is, if the selection committee had common sense, which they don't.
I think USAG has a few favorites. Based on this and a decision in the past, it just seems Sender isn't one of their favorites. It was possibly much easier for them to make way for one of the guys they seem to favor with Sender injured and unable to compete, sad to say. This decision reminds me of the Sean Townsend deal for the 2004 Olympic Trials. He was third AA and left not only off the team, but as an alternate as well.
and although i think that the selection committee should have named a training squad and separated the alternates from the team at a later date, i still think they came up with the best team, possibly with the exception of leaving sasha artemev off the team, but even that is understandable.
also, yes, david sender does have the title of the current national champion, but it is important to keep in mind that that does not mean he is the current best gymnast. paul hamm wasn't even competing and jonathan horton and others had a bad meet. he was consistent enough to come out on top, but he still doesn't help the team where the team needs help. he has similar strengths and weaknesses as jonathan horton except that jonathan horton is better, except for maybe on pommel horse.
In all likelihood, the actual members of the "selection committee" weren't the only ones making the decision. Pressure and lobbying came from every direction, but in the end, the committee probably selected the gymnasts they were supposed to select based on some under-the-table "you owe me" logic. They were damned no matter who they selected.
If the choices made Sunday don't make sense to gymnastics fans, what must the general public think? I had my suspicions when NBC cut away its coverage of gymnastics just before the men's team was announced (really, the pretaped rerun of Dateline could have been pushed back).
However, with that said, shouldn't consistency count for something? A previous poster stated himself that the reason why Horton did not win nationals was because he had a bad meet (as did countless others who fell on their best events). Ultimately, what the Olympics boils down to is partly putting your most gifted athletes out on the floor and partly putting your most solid athletes out on the floor. Every man who is on that team is a gifted athlete on at least one apparatus. However, do they all have a track record for hitting when it counts? I'm not convinced that all of them do. David Sender, though, does have such a track record, which is why it is such a shame that he was left off the squad.
Certainly USA Gymnastics is correct in considering the potential that each athlete brings to the team vis a vis start values and execution scores (which explains why Bhavsar finds himself as an alternate once again). However, it doesn't matter how high a gymnast's potential score is if he falls and incurs severe A and B score deductions. I understand that Sender doesn't provide the scoring potential that some other gymnasts on the team do. However, as evidenced at nationals, lower valued routines that are decently executed can and do outscore higher valued ones with major mistakes, and, ultimately, might be of more use to the US in the team competition.
My heart goes out to David Sender. I know that this must be an incredibly crushing blow for him (and not one that the consolation prize of the salary potential that a Stanford degree offers will do much to heal).
The team is already weak on pommels, so he could not replace Hamm, Hamm, Haggerty, or Tan. So he would have to replace Spring or Horton. Horton has a better chance in AA and Spring is better on pb, hb.
I think the real controversy is why is Raj an alternate. He should be on the team because he is strong on pommels and rings and is world class on pb and v.
Had Sender been able to compete at Trials and be able to do well like he did at Nationals, things would not be looked at as a "who could he replace" situation. They would have probably had Sender factored in as one of the main guys. That is, if they didn't make him an alternate (and since he doesn't seem to be favored, he could have been one even if he did well at Trials, too). It's just a blow that they didn't seem to consider him for an alternate position at the very least.
Post your comment