OLYMPIC GAMES

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 172, 16 April 1932, Page 20

OLYMPIC GAMES

Miss Kench’s Selection EXCLUSION OF GROSE The cycling council of the New Zealand Amateur Athletic Association decided last night that it could not accede to the suggestion of the Canterbury Cycling Committee that F. Grose should be given precedence over Miss Kench for inclusion in the New Zealand Olympic team, and unanimously agreed to proceed with the trials at Wanganui on April 29 as already decided. A telegram had been received from the Canterbury Cycling Committee saying it considered that Grose, by winning the New Zealand titles, earned the right to ride at Olympic track events, and best performances on the road entitled him to consideration without trial, and should give him precedence over Miss Kench for inclusion in the Olympic team. The Canterbury committee was not in favour of the proposed Wanganui trials, as the notice was too short for any cyclist to be fit by the 29th. As the matter was an important one affecting the Wanganui trials, the chairman. Mr. H. I. Austad, said he had called the meeting in order to allow Canterbury to have a reply by Monday next. Mr. R. W. McVilly said he thought the point about training was all camouflage. Men who had recently competed in championship races should be at the top of their form, so it was idle to contend that a spell of a few days would do a man any harm. There was plenty of time to make the trials. When Grose and O’Brien represented Canterbury at the conference in Auckland they were insistent that it would be unfair to judge them by the championship on the grass track, and that before any decisions were made trials should take place on an Olympic track. The cycling committee gave effect to these views by arranging to hold the trials, and those trials should be proceeded with. He thought the committee. would be very weak to alter its decision. Mr. A, Shephard: I am not budging an inch. Mr. G. H. Harrison: We have made a decision and that should be final. The chairman remarked that the object of the trials was to determine whether the standard of cycling was strong enough to warrant one cyclist representative being sent to the Games. It was not to determine who the cyclist should be, and did not determine whether any cyclist should go. Referring to the Olympic selection Mr. McVilly said he desired to make it quite clear that the mere fact that certain names having been transmitted to the Olympic Council as possible competitors to represent New Zealand at the Olympic Games did not necessarily indicate the order in which the competitors had been selected. When the trials had been completed by those who had to undergo them the position would be further considered and the whole of the names submitted to the Olympic Council with a recommendation as to the order in which the competitors should be chosen, in the event of it being necessary to impose a limitation on the number which cqn be sent. It did not necessarily follow that those whose names had already been handed in would be Anally selected. There seemed to be some misapprehension as to the position of the selectors, added Mr. McVilly. What they were requested to do was to make recommendations to the New Zealand Amateur Athletic and Cycling Association in respect to those who they thought possessed the qualifications necessary, the final decision resting with the council. Owing to the disadvantage of having to review competitors at short notice they themselves suggested that to overcome the difficulty selectors for future Olympic Games should be appointed at least 12 months ahead. He moved that the committee adhere to its previous decision, and that the trials be held as arranged at Wanganui on April 29. The motion was then put and carried unanimously.