Dismissing Janne Järvinen from the 2021 Olympic regatta showed that there cannot be such a small sporting difference between the candidates that the Olympic Committee’s brain trust would not find it, writes Pekka Holopainen.
Pekka Holopainen
The then head of coaching at the Sports Association Jarmo Mäkelä received the king’s thought on the Kimpinen field in Lappeenranta on August 13, 2011. Young Sampo Grove improved his record by 5.27 meters to 83.77 and won Antti Ruuskanen. The two javelin spots for the World Championships in Daegu had already been given to others. Mäkelä decided to rely on the comet’s potential in his World Cup selection performance instead of Ruuskanen’s consistency and sold his ideas To the board of the sports association. Rapala grabbed its gills.
In the Lehtola scandal, the value competition selection system written by the union itself was forgotten, and there was no fire support for the solution in the first place. Ruuskanen went to the Sports Legal Protection Committee to change the decision against the criteria in line with the Sports Confederation’s own policies, and in the end he was the best Finn at the World Championships.
He proved his potential with three prestigious medals in 2012-2016. The injury-prone Lehtola threw more than 80 meters a total of Four times in his career; The Lappeenranta ghost storm remained a record.
Youth and potential
In May, the Olympic Committee’s elite sports unit and the government rubber-stamping its selection proposals are on the brink of a dilemma very similar to the conclave of the Sports Federation in August 2011: youth and potential, i.e. Joakim Oldorff or experience and selection criteria ie Kalle Koljonen?
On Thursday, Urheilu reported something that the Badminton Association would not have wanted to make public under any circumstances. The organization has quietly proposed to the Olympic Committee that the experienced Koljonen should be selected for the Paris Games, even though Oldorff, who is almost 10 years younger, just achieved EC bronze and advanced two rounds further than his experienced colleague.
The top badminton steering group that made the presentation was not unanimous, but Oldorff also received support.
Just to be sure
The union is certainly playing in the matter from two points of view. Finland has had Olympic representation in the sport since 1992, and the place has always been offered to the number one name in the Olympic ranking, now Koljosen. In addition, the international sports federation also presents an Olympic invitation to the highest-ranked, eligible player in their country. From this point of view, Koljonen enters the Olympic Committee’s process without further ado.
Now, a large part of the Finnish badminton community is watching with great interest, whether the top sports unit will really start to compare men’s success potential as well, and whether it has the right to make a rare selection decision, i.e. against the proposal of the sports association. And does it have any kind of competence to do so?
In recent history, the Olympic Committee has mostly been employed in these brands by sailing selections. Kiper’s position fell in front of 2021. At that time, a real expert of the sport and the selection system sat on the board, i.e. a multiple prize winner, the current minister Sari Multala (cook).
In the 2008 season, he was at the very top of the world’s elite in the Laser Radial class, but lost to a minor Tuula Tenkanen exactly those shots that were recorded as the display locations of the Qingdao Olympic regatta.
On a magical level
Although the composition of both the elite sports unit and the board have since lived and changed somewhat, the brain trust of Suomi sports is at a magical level when it comes to digging up the sporting difference. As far as the fairness of badminton selection, both legally and athletically, is automation in every aspect.
The committee proved this by finding a specifically athletic difference in the 2021 selection situation Sinem Kurtbayn that is, of extremely even guest candidates Axeli Keskinen and Janne Järvinen in between. Järvinen, who was in the process of securing a place in the Olympic Games, had just received an unconditional prison sentence from the court, which was later turned into a conditional one at the court, for the Katiska drug crime gang.
The sporting difference was tiny, and Järvinen’s judgment was of course not weighted in the search for it, because the Olympic Committee’s own criteria was not recordedthat such a circumstance would have any meaning in the elections.