Shortened TOPS list reflect inadequate talent bank across disciplines and poor planning

The Early Warning Signals have just been delivered as far as India’s projections for the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games are concerned.  The first list of Target Olympic Podium athletes in the wake of Paris 2024 includes a total of only 10 disciplines, 42 athletes in eight disciplines in Core Group includes and 112 in nine disciplines in the Development Group.

In a reflection of the state of Indian sport and the thinking of the most elite group entrusted with the task of planning the evolution of the nation’s top athletes, it must be said that the expectations have already been pegged low. After six months ostensibly spent in reviewing and analysing India’s show in Paris, TOPS had drastically reduced the number of athletes getting support.

While one understands that TOPS will eventually support hockey players – and the cricketers are well provided for by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the two lists include just two boxers and table tennis players each as well as one swimmer and weightlifter each in the Core Group, three rowers in the Development Group  and no cyclists, sailors or Equestrian sport athletes. 

There seems little point in adding athletes for enhanced support by TOPS only after they have qualified for the Olympic Games. There have been instances of athletes being identified for TOPS support for barely a month after they have worked hard, often raising their own resources, to earn tickets to the Olympic Games.

Lower benchmarks needed in some disciplines

Besides, it is time for the TOPS research team to draw up more practical criteria for a number of disciplines that will make athletes aspire to meet rather than be discouraged as a bridge too far. It will motivate athletes and their National Sports Federations to plan and mark their presence in Asia in a stronger manner than before and then aim to attain global standards.

If India aspires to win more medals in Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games, the planning team must get its act together, first by identifying athletes is more disciplines than nine to support in the Development Group. To be fair, TOPS supported sprint cycling and fencing athletes in significant numbers. By removing them entirely, MOC has possibly admitted a systemic failure.

Most may not realise the import of Vishnu Saravanan’s 18th place finish in the ICLA7 class sailing event in Paris 2024 which saw 43 competitors. It seems that the one person who could have known, TOPS CEO, Col.  NS Johal, missed a chance to impress on the committee that Vishnu Saravanan deserved better than a complete cold shoulder after the Olympic Games.

Last year ended with cyclist Meenakshi being ranked World No. 13 in Women’s Elite 3km Pursuit and Harshveer Singh Sekhon as World No. 14 in Men’s Elite Elimination. These are not Olympic events, but these two endurance riders can be trained for Asian Games medal events. India’s focus has been so much on the sprinters that these endurance riders have flown under the radar.

It is possible that the powers-that-be will react by saying that there is a Target Asian Games Group on the anvil. But that argument will not hold water since the TOPS Development group has thoughtfully included Compound Archers whose event does not figure in the Olympic Games but have earned well deserved recognition from TOPS.

Children of a Lesser God?

Worryingly, there are close to 20 athletes who were in the Indian contingent in Paris 2024, competing in Archery, Athletics, Badminton, Boxing, Shooting and Wrestling, and have now been relegated to the TOPS Development Group. Ironically, some of their contemporaries, who did not make it to the Olympic Games, have been included in the Core Group. 

When these athletes look at the Core Group and see either their team-mates who have delivered similar performances or those who were not even in the national reckoning, they will wonder if they are children of a lesser God. By all accounts, not a few athletes have been scrambling to find out if they have made the cut or not since they have not heard from TOPS officials.

Of course, you can look at this move as MOCs way to stoke the hunger of the 20 or so Olympians who have been relegated to the Development Group. But the converse would be more apt. Some athletes, who are the best in their respective events, will see this step as rather demotivating and will find it as an additional challenge to overcome in the journey ahead. 

Instead of finding ways to enhance their growth as high performance athletes and help them deliver under the highest pressure, TOPS has scaled their support down by identifying them in the Development Group. What will this be perceived as if not as taking the foot off the pedal? At a time when critical interventions are needed, these athletes must be given a higher grade of support.

On another note, if a two-time Olympian has to be slotted in the TOPS Development list, it could be time to rebrand the groups and call them TOPS Platinum and TOPS Gold. To think of a 30-year-old as being a Development Group athlete does not come across right, does it? You would associate the term development group with juniors rather than vastly experienced athletes.