THE Olympic Games opening ceremony is edging ever closer, and in the process incresingy numbers of athletes are being confirmed as members of Team GB each week.
Interest in what its composition will be, ultimately, is building nicely.
One of the most intriguing selection questions, particularly from a Scottish perspective is whether Sir Chris Hoy will be given the opportunity to repeat his incredible three-gold medal haul from the 2008 Olympics.
Hoy is locked in a ferocious battle with his GB team-mate, Jason Kenny, for the one available berth in the individual sprint. If Kenny is preferred, Hoy will not denied the opportunity to repeat his feat of four years ago, as a rule change means that each nation is permitted to enter only one rider per event.
The selectors, therefore, face the fiendish dilemma of trying to decide which rider is better placed to deliver the gold medal on August 6.
Kenny pipped Hoy in the semi-final of the World Championships last month, but Hoy has won three of their last five meetings, and was also faster than his rival in qualifying at the World Championships.
Herein lies the problem in selecting an Olympic team: what factors should be considered? Badminton has a year-long qualifying period which ends with a world ranking list portraying a pretty accurate indicator of form over the previous year.
Other sports, though, such as swimming have a one-off, do-or-die trial. If you do not finish in the top two in the trials, you are not selected.
Then there are sports like cycling which take into account the whole year, with certain events being given greater emphasis than others.
There are merits to each of these policies. A year-long campaign requires consistency, whereas a one-off trial in many ways replicates the pressure an athlete will face at the Games themselves.
If you cannot cope with the pressure of the trials, how can you expect to cope with the crushing pressure of an Olympic final at a home Games?
This is why the Hoy-Kenny question is so absorbing. Kenny won their meeting at the biggest event of the season, but the pressure he experienced there was nothing compared to the expectation of winning a gold medal in London in a few months' time.
This is where Hoy has an edge. He may not have competed in a home Olympics but he has shown time and time again his ability to handle pressure. His gold medal ride in the kilometre in Athens in 2004 – he watched the two riders ahead of him consecutively break the Olympic record and put themselves in the gold medal position before he bettered both their times to catapult himself to the top step of the podium – demonstrated his ability to deal successfully with pressure.
The fairest selection policies take into account the whole season; this requires athletes to demonstrate consistency of results, which, let me assure you, is not easy. While I acknowledge the merits of an isolated trial, primarily because of the similarities it shares with one-off races at the Olympics themselves, I feel there are too many anomalies which can come into play and can result in the best athlete over the course of the season being left at home.
I realise, though, that this does not make the Hoy/Kenny question any clearer. Both have extremely credible claims for the one available spot, and whoever is selected will be a genuine gold medal contender.
The decision is likely to be made sooner rather than later, with Hoy in particular expressing his desire to know what events he will be riding in to enable him to focus his training appropriately.
Dave Brailsford, British Cycling's performance director, has stated that results and statistics from training sessions will be considered while reputation will, quite rightly, not come into it.
On paper, Kenny shades it. I have a sneaky feeling, however, that Hoy might just get the nod.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article