The selection of Great Britain’s athletes for Beijing has been a matter of debate since the UK trials several weeks ago in Birmingham.

http://www.ukathletics.net/competitions/selection-criteria/olympic-and-paralympic-games-beijing-2008/ takes you to the website where you may study the criteria by which decisions have been made.

In my opinion it is far from clear – too may ifs and buts giving too much discretion to selectors.

There are quite a few complex issues involved in the process, but the key points are that in each event GB can send up to 3 athletes as long as they have met the “A” Standard, but only 1 athlete if only the “B” standard has been met.

Sometimes a selector’s decision is far from easy, when perhaps more than 3 athletes have the “A” qualification in a particular event. The key to any decision made, is that it can be backed up with a reasoned argument.

But some of the decisions have been extremely controversial.

Take the example of Stuart Stokes of Sale who has the “A” qualification from a 3000m Steeplechase in Prague in June and one of only 2 athletes to have the “A” Standard. In a tactical race at the Trials, he ran below par, but would still have expected to go under normal circumstances.

However UKA decided to only send 1 athlete in this event and Stuart missed out, leading to accusations of ageism.

Stuart is 31 years old and if 10 years younger with the same season behind him, he would most likely have gained selection. In fact, if he had avoided the trial, perhaps thrown in a sick note, he would also have probably gone.

London 2012 is playing a part in the selection decisions, and at 31, Stuart is unlikely to be involved in 4 years time.

How strange then is the case of Richard Yates? He is a 22 year old 400m Hurdler from Trafford AC. His PB’s have improved each year. 51:44 in 2006, 51:25 in 2007 and then a PB 49:50 at the Olympic Trials which gave him the “B” Standard.

So we have a young and improving athlete who is the only GB athlete to hold the qualifying time.

But he wasn’t picked. To further underline his progression, he ran another PB of 49:06 only 2 weeks later – an “A” standard, but too late.

This apparent inconsistency by the selectors has led to further accusations of incompetence and even corruption within the process, as funded athletes seem to have been given more leeway.

Even if you take selection out of the equation and adopt the USA’s method of first 3 at the trial with no exceptions, there is still room for controversy, such as the absence of Sanya Richards from the Womens 400m in Osaka last year.

But it is clear to me that the tighter the criteria which selectors have to work to, the lower the likelihood of the controversy over the current GB squad. Making it more complex helps no one.

Set a simple standard that is clear to all – the current “A” & “B” standards are fine. If 3 or less have the “A” standard then send them. If only 1 has the “B” standard then send them.

The selectors only then have to get involved if more athletes are qualified and then that is where the trials come in and the trial should have primacy on any selection decisions that have to be made.

But age should not count. Why should an 18 year old have priority over a 28 year old?

Each athlete, regardless of age, has trained and competed for a period of time in order to meet the qualifying mark that is set out for them. Having met that mark, they should be entitled to go to represent their country at the World’s greatest sporting event, and no one should be in a position to deprive them of that.

Athletes have worked their socks off to get to a level which allows them to gain selection, and reaching this level alone means that they are extremely talented individuals who have made enormous sacrifices.

The selectors chose not to send them – and let’s be clear about this. It is not a decision between 2 athletes for one spot. These are available places that we have not filled with anyone.

I worry that the message it sends out to athletes for the future is, work hard, do the right things, make the sacrifices etc.. but we still might not pick you after all that.

Attendance at an Olympic Games anywhere is a supreme achievement. We must make sure that the selection process is clear for all, otherwise we risk undermining our sport.

We have several young athletes currently in East Lancashire that could well go on to represent GB in London. But they will face many obstacles along the way and the athletes and their families will have to make great sacrifices just to get them qualified. Negative selection decisions like these should not be made.

Once you have earned the right to go, you should go – simple.