Moving goalposts ends Mokoena’s dream

It might not be as depressing as some of the other certainties in life, but the announcement of a national team for a multi-sport event brings with it a sense of inevitability.

Once a team is announced, someone is going to appeal. And we can hardly blame them when qualifying criteria is made so complex that athletes and media are left floundering in an attempt to understand.

This week, versatile jumper Khotso Mokoena was among the most frustrated athletes who were left stranded, and his case is a prime example of the sort of damage caused by vague criteria.

The qualifying criteria for the Commonwealth Games was relatively simple. If an individual athlete wanted a place in the team, they had to be ranked among the top 10 in the Commonwealth in their discipline during the qualifying window.

That was the only way Mokoena could have qualified, and if the policy had been left at that, there would have been no room for confusion.

In an entirely unnecessary move, however, Athletics SA and Sascoc decided to add qualifying standards to the equation.

On top of that, vague clauses are generally included in qualifying policies, giving selectors options to select medal contenders, or “future”medal contenders.

During the qualifying window, Mokoena achieved the required standard in the triple jump event, but he was ranked outside the top 10 in the Commonwealth, and while he climbed into the top 10 @wesbotton earlier this year, his latest performance was achieved outside the window period.

After being left out of the team this week for the Games, Mokoena reportedly called on Sascoc to consider his potential as a medal contender.

And though his form has slipped in recent years, it’s difficult to argue his point. Aside from being a former Olympic and World Championships silver medallist in the long jump, Mokoena is also the reigning Commonwealth champi- on in the triple jump after winning gold at the 2014 Glasgow Games, and few SA athletes in any code can boast as much experience as the lanky 32-year-old jumper.

But the only clause in the criteria which mattered, it seems, was the only box he didn’t tick, and despite Mokoena meeting the necessary standard and arguing his potential as a podium contender, he did not achieve a top-10 ranking during the qualifying window.

The rest is irrelevant, so why dangle a carrot just to rip it away? Why introduce pointless standards and loophole clauses?

Mokoena has every right to be aggrieved by his omission, and by taking an all-round assessment of his situation, it seems clear he should be in the team.

But he didn’t qualify, so he’s not going, and yet another athlete (along with others who were omitted this week) is left to tear his hair out in frustration.

If unnecessary qualifying standards and loophole clauses were removed from vague criteria, Mokoena wouldn’t be putting up a fight because he wouldn’t have a leg on which to stand.

Instead, we have wishy-washy criteria, loophole clauses, and a group of angry athletes feeling unwanted and betrayed.

It really doesn’t have to be so complicated.

We already have to deal with death and taxes, and we don’t need the additional guarantee that athletes appeal and threaten to revolt every time a team is selected.

Not that the athletes are at fault. Basic communication and easily interpretable criteria shouldn’t really be too much to ask.