Athletes await appeal verdicts
Several athletes are nervously waiting to learn whether appeals against their omission from Great Britain's Olympics squad have been successful.
Gareth Warburton, Richard Kilty and Jemma Simpson were among those who found out on Tuesday that they had missed out on the 77-strong Team GB athletics group. All three have lodged formal appeals and will find out the outcomes later on Friday.
Welsh 800 metres runner Warburton achieved the required 'A' standard time for London 2012 this season, although he failed to do so at last week's European Championships. Warburton was seeking a place alongside Andrew Osagie and Michael Rimmer, but was overlooked and confirmed his appeal on Thursday.
He posted on Twitter: "Officially appealed against my Olympic omission. Waiting to hear back tomorrow (Friday) or Saturday on the panels decision."
Kilty, a 200m sprinter, is another who announced his intention to appeal, while Marlon Devonish has also reportedly decided to fight his exclusion from the 4x100m relay.
However, the biggest talking point since Tuesday's announcement has been regarding the women's 800m. While Jenny Meadows confirmed she will not fight her absence, fellow hopeful Simpson has been quite outspoken.
The 28-year-old - along with Meadows, Marilyn Okoro and Emma Jackson - was left out the squad despite possessing the 'A' standard, unlike the selected Lynsey Sharp. Simpson told BBC Cornwall: "I think there is grounds for all four girls that haven't been picked for the team to appeal. I've sent my letter and I hope everyone else does too."
"Four athletes have been sacrificed for one. One showed current form and the selection process is so extensive you could have picked any one of the four. I don't know how they came to their decision - I think it's the wrong decision."
Any appeal had to be lodged within 24 hours of the team announcement and then heard within 48 hours. The appeals panel consists of UK Athletics (UKA) chairman Ed Warner, UKA president Lynn Davies and an independent barrister.
However, such appeals would seem likely to fail given that they can only be based on whether facts have been overlooked or the selection panel has not adhered to their published policy.