All smiles: Usain Bolt and Sally Pearson with their awards (Photo: GETTY IMAGES)
The world governing body of athletics may have got one vote right by choosing London instead of Doha to host the 2017 World Championships, but its choice of the male and female world athletes of the year has provoked understandable anger.
So much so that it prompted a walk-out by Kenyan delegates in protest at the women’s vote at the International Association of Athletics Federations gala in Monaco.
The choice of Usain Bolt as the male winner was controversial enough. Even Bolt would admit that 2011 was not one of his best years as he struggled to find top gear in the early part of the season and then false-started in the 100 metres final at the World Championships in Daegu.
His training partner, Yohan Blake, was surely far more deserving of the accolade for his 100m world gold, his brilliant bend to set Jamaica up for a world record-breaking 4x100m relay victory and his spectacular 200m performance in Brussels, where his winning time of 19.26sec was the second fastest in history.
But when it comes to its choice of female athlete of the year, Australian Sally Pearson, the IAAF would appear to have lost the plot.
That is not to denigrate Pearson’s achievement in winning the 100m hurdles gold in Daegu in the fourth fastest time in history. She is one hell of an athlete.
But how could the IAAF possibly rate her above Vivian Cheruiyot? The Kenyan was untouchable this year, winning world titles in the 5,000 and 10,000m to add to the 8km crown she won at the World Cross Country Championships.
She rounded off her unbeaten season by taking the overall Diamond League title – a feat Pearson was unable to match after falling in the Diamond League final in Brussels.
The vote for the two athletes of the year, which carries a substantial prize of $100,000 for the winners, is a relatively internal affair and is not open to the public.
Members of the so-called ‘IAAF family’ – national federations, meeting directors, athletes and their representatives, media – are invited to vote for three male and female athletes. A final shortlist is then drawn up and the IAAF’s ruling council has the final say.
The IAAF says it went for Pearson above Cheruiyot because she attracted more votes than the Kenyan in the IAAF family poll.
But that has provoked the ire of Isaiah Kiplagat, the chairman of Athletics Kenya, who says the election procedure penalises African athletes:
“We are all disappointed and the reason I was given when I asked – that Vivian received 30 votes less than Pearson in the online voting – is not enough. The purpose of the sportsman or sportswoman of the year is nothing else other than the performance.
“This is not a beauty pageant where the one with the best looks gets to win. Neither should they use online voting as a reason since it is quite clear that Africans are not on the same level in the usage of the internet. The selection needs to be changed.
“Even Pearson admitted Cheruiyot should have won it. Everyone there thought the same and to have any other outcome does not reflect the true nature of the awards.”
By way of a consolation prize, both Blake and Cheruiyot were presented with 'Performance of the Year' awards at the IAAF gala, though neither of them looked too enamoured as they received their trophies, which do not come with any prize money. They are both entitled to feel hard done by.
It is surely no coincidence that Bolt is the most marketable and iconic athlete on the planet, while the personable and articulate Pearson has emerged this year as the new face of women’s athletics.
Despite their brilliance on the track, Blake and Cheruiyot simply do not have the same cachet or charisma off it. You need to be popular to win the IAAF's top award. Running fast just isn’t enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment