There lie the tough thing about track selection. With a plethora of talent, the numbers matter and depending on who you want to listen to, they were either good or not quite there. Hard call but that's what coaches get paid for. Always someone who misses out and you think, what if?
I think the difficulty is the impression, rightly or wrongly, that at times selections have been made for reasons other than performance or suitability for the event.
I do think Olympic Golds are not won through compromise. If Cav wanted one badly enough, then he should have figured it out early enough to commit to that 100%. One could argue that he hasn't done that and went for the Omnium as that fits with his RR and especially the TdF. That sounds to me as a compromise??
SBW (for whatever reasons
) has committed to the Olympic Team Pursuit and I think he will get his reward. Cav could have committed earlier and 100% won a place in the 'banker' disciplines but he hasn't and is 'left' with the Omnium...
I think that's a little unfair. It's not unreasonable to suggest Cav could have committed to pursuit but it would have been at the expense of two years' road programme and even then, with a strong pursuit squad and Cav not having seriously pursuited for 10 years or so it's not obvious he'd have been in the final cut; I suspect he knew that when he aimed at the omnium qualification.
As it is, he was selected for both pursuit and omnium for Rio, believed that was the case when he left the Tour and is officially still a pursuiter, though it's likely now only an injury reserve. I think it could also be argued that far from being a compromise, staying in the Tour might have been better Omnium preparation.
Given the culling of Olympic track disciplines and the potential final cut for the pursuit it might be right to say he was left with the omnium, and agreed it is less of a banker and more of a lottery, but is it right to say he 'went for the omnium' to fit with his road programme? I'm not sure.