Why has a sport of equals so quickly become a sport of haves and have-nots?

Over the coming week at the European Athletics Championships in Munich, athletes ranked in the top 12 in each of the sprint events, including hurdles, have been given a bye to the semi-finals of their respective event and a precious seeded lane for that second round.

This ridiculous format is just one in a long list of ‘innovations’ which favour the haves over the have-nots. But so widely ridiculed on the previous two occasions it was used (in 2016 and 2018), I was somewhat blindsided by its resurrection post-Covid. I can’t have been the only one.

But shame on me for not seeing this one coming. We shouldn’t, at this point, be surprised by the introduction and desperate retention of formats which add nothing to the sport and which do not have the athletes’ best interests at heart.

And so, those who have the fastest times so far this season get to sit out the first round in Munich.

And those just outside those top dozen spots, as well as those further down the field, get to warm up, go through the dreaded callroom, race, encounter the mixed zone, and warm down a whole extra time. And their best hope? Lane two or lane seven in the semi-final and not picking up an injury or worse in the process.

Remember, this group of athletes, too, includes those who didn’t quite make the automatic qualifying time, and who had to chase ranking points as well as times, finish high enough in their national championships to gain selection, manoeuvre whatever other ‘qualifying’ criteria their NGB put in their way, and, do it all by late June, because anyone who didn’t qualify for Worlds essentially sat through a month of minimal opportunities to gain either ranking points or qualifying times, let alone have a chance to earn a living from the sport.

God help anyone who picked up a minor injury or Covid in May.

The ranking-based quota system, which depends largely on athletes having enough sway to get them into Cat B or higher races, and championship formats with byes or repêchages disproportionately play into the hands of those who are at the top of their game, those who have already achieved, and potentially (dare I say it), those who are doping.

The quota system is not liked by athletes, is increasingly ignored (or adapted in some way) by national governing bodies, and does nothing to reduce the integrity issues which were used to sell it in the first place. Indeed, the opposite may well be true.

But yet, both the World and European federations carry on regardless. You’ve got to wonder what’s in it for them.

And the whole shambles doesn’t end there. There’s the thing about what shoes to wear – and not just because the sport continues to shoot itself in the foot. There’s the fact you can qualify for an Olympic 10,000m without ever stepping on a track, in a pair of shoes that are not allowed on the track.

And if I’m reading it right (forgive me if I’m not, it got a bit complicated recently), you can achieve a standard in any event, in a development (but not a prototype) shoe – wings optional - which isn’t yet available to your competitors.

And final 3 – whatever version of which we’re on by now – can get in the bin with the rest.

I’m not against innovation (ok, maybe I am a little bit), but anything you introduce shouldn’t divide one level of athlete from the next, shouldn’t corrode integrity, and shouldn’t make things more complicated.

You wouldn’t get away with any of this crap in the Community Games, so why do it at the top level?

Perhaps that could be the litmus test.