From track Canada - an email copy that was sent to Martin Goulet, the High Performance Director of Athletics Canada over non-selection of their best 10k runner who had seemingly achieved the required standard and was their trial winner yet was not selected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it wasn't clear, my email was directed at Martin Goulet and company
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Vancouver <run1500@yahoo.com>
To: track-canada@mailman.srv.ualberta.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:16:37 AM
Subject: Officials are the problem
Martin,
You and the various so-called officials are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This nonsense has been going on forever, I remember it even during the Jerome Drayton days, putting all kinds of obstacles in the paths of the athletes.
You can talk all you want about only sending medallists, but look at where Athletics is in Canada? Where are the elite Marathoners, men and women? Where are the runners coming up behind Sullivan?
For men, we have one runner under 29 minutes in the rankings, and no runners under 2:15 in the marathon.
For the women, one under 9:00 minutes for 3000, 1 under 15:30 in the 5K, 1 under 33 for 10K and 1 under 2:34 for the marathon.
To me a long time supporter of Athletics in Canada, for Athletics Canada and the various Olympic committees, its all about how can we do less for our athletes, not more.
In the US, the new crop of athletes are setting records, here we are setting records in how few athletes are competing at the international level.
Take some responsibility for this mess for a change.
George Muenz
Vancouver, BC.
0
National Athletics - Same Problem Everywhere?
Started by pjw, Jul 11 2008 02:08 PM
26 replies to this topic
Support our Australian advertisers:
#2
-
- Newbie
-
- 2 posts Joined: 28-June 08
Newbie
#3
-
- Administrator
-
- 8,272 posts Joined: 01-August 01
CoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:Sydney
Posted 13 July 2008 - 06:35 PM
good one spectator very interesting:
Quote
A report into the corrosive impact of
UK Sport and Sport England
into Athletics
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
British Athletics has been in decline for ten years, and throughout that time those charged with reversing the trend have avoided mentioning the Elephant in the room.
The Athletics Elephant is an aggressive influence that distracts the sport from its core purpose, which is the provision of competition, which allow the athletes to funnel themselves upwards. The Athletics Elephant corrupts the environment by promising money then stipulating that all the money must be spent on the Elephant's own priorities.
It is the money distributed by the Elephant in the room, that pays the wages of over 150 athletics personnel, each with a job title which allows the Elephant to tick a box.
The Elephant says "You will not talk about me in negative terms, and you will not talk about me without first getting my permission". The Elephant insists that he is entitled to be present at all meaningful athletics meetings both sporting and administrative. The Elephant may inspect the office records of UK Athletics whenever it chooses. The Elephant demands compliance, whilst at the same time insists it should not be held accountable for the corrosive influence it exerts.
It gets worst when one appreciates that Athletics has two Elephants in the same room. UK Sport and Sport England are the Elephants in the room.
Information just released under the Freedom of Information act brings into sharp focus how these two money rich Elephants have poisoned the Athletics environment since they created UK Athletics in 1997. Let no apologist for UK Sport or UK Athletics get away with blaming obesity, computer games, selling of playing fields, popularity of football, bad coaching, the size of the opposition, or create any other smokescreen to hide behind. British children and young adults are as dynamic, explosive and motivated today as they ever have been. Each year over thirty 13/16 year old boys and girls impact the top twenty domestic all time rankings, over all athletic events. Young adults aged 17 to 20 are competitive at the international championships. It is only after they come under the influence of UK Athletics and UK Sport, that standards nose dive.
Christine Ohuruogu's gold medal win at the Osaka World Championships, within days of returning from a one year ban, demonstrates that the support of UK Sport and UK Athletics has no positive impact on who achieves success at major championships.
The first section discusses UK Sport's funding agreement with UK Athletics, and highlights the way that UK Sport have taken charge of athletics, in the quest for personal glory, and in doing so, have undermined its core value of fairness.
The second section looks into Sport England's funding terms with UK Athletics and highlights how the grass roots of the sport are being pressured into becoming mass participation "keep fit" clubs, at the expense of being dedicated athletic clubs.
UK SPORT’S FUNDING AGREEMENT
UK Sport (Responsibility for high performance)
On 31st July 2007, After representations under the Freedom of Information Act, UK Sport released the UK Athletics Funding Agreement for the period from 2005 to 2009.
Click Here to download the Funding Agreement. (This is a very large PDF file of 11 megabytes, so a broadband connection is required).
For the period from 1st April 2005 to 31st March 2009 UK Sport have promised UK Athletics £8.8 million to fund "World Class Performance" and "World Class Operations".
The terms of the funding agreement between UK Sport and UK Athletics gives an insight to the corrosive nature of UK Sport, and the unquestioning obedience of UK Athletics.
Because UK Sport are distributing public money, they are required to set targets. Described as "Key Performance Indicators" (KPI's), these targets are a double edged sword which can also highlight decline. However because decline will reflect badly on UK Sport, decline is not an option. The KPI's are designed to be easily manipulated.
For Example, UK Sport dictate that UK Athletics must increase the "number/percentage" of athletes winning medals at major Championships and reaching finals (Page 22). It would have been more honest to fix the number of athletes attending major Championships and increase the number of medals won or finals achieved. By targeting percentage improvements UK Athletics can manipulate the KPI by reducing the size of the team, which is exactly what they have done in Osaka at the expense of the throwers. This policy is harmful in the long term to all areas of the sport, including the major international championships who are deprived of the participation of an important athletics nation.
Disingenuous KPI's together with an array of other conditions passes control of athletics to UK Sport whilst UK Athletics exist merely to shield the quango from responsibility for failure. Examples of the control wielded by UK Sport are sprinkled throughout the funding agreement:
* UK Athletics will not discuss any aspect of the award without prior consultation with UK Sport
(Page
.
* UK Sport will have access to inspect UK Athletics premises and records at any time
(Page 9).
* UK Sport have the right to attend all UK Athletics Board Meetings, Management Committee Meetings or similar meetings, and will be provided with the notice of such meetings, and agenda and the minutes.
(Page 10)
* Athletes will be required to enter into a legally enforceable contract based on a template provided by UK Sport
(Page 11)
* UK Sport have the right to attend squad sessions
(Page 24)
* UK Sport will monitor the media coverage of every Lottery funded athlete, and require that every athlete acknowledges Lottery Funding at least once per year.
(Page 24)
* UK Sport and UK Athletics will keep the content of the plan confidential and will not disclose any of its content to a third party
(Page 19)
We are a sport of Running, Jumping and Throwing. What on earth can be confidential in such a sport?
At a time when athletics needs its governing body to act as a protector of its values, it is stuck with UK Athletics who have a funding policy which favours one athlete over another, and adopts a selection policy for International Championships, which is almost entirely subjective. UK Athletics must be the most unnecessary and counter productive body in sport.
UK Sport have distorted the priorities of athletics by imposing its own social agenda onto the sport. What is a section like "Equality" (page 16) doing in a "High Performance" funding agreement? No sport in the UK has expressed the values of equality more emphatically than Athletics, and it does not need to be lectured on such matters by a quango.
The slippery nature of UK Sport is crystallised in the funding agreement in Section 23 on page 18. Under the heading of "Exclusion of Liability /Indemnity", this clause can be paraphrased as "UK Sport will not be held liable for any loss or damage caused by compliance with any part of this Funding Agreement". The next paragraph emphasises the point by requiring that "where UK Sport might be held liable by a third party, then UK Athletics will assume such liability on behalf of UK Sport".
UK Athletics are no more than a front for UK Sport which allows the quango to pull the strings whilst avoiding the responsibility. The belief that by investing in the pinnacle of the sport it is possible to elevate the elite performers away from the rest, is complete nonsense. If UK Sport were to focus their attention on building affordable facilities, and allow the athletics community to run the sport, standards in depth would again start to rise.
SPORT ENGLAND’S MEANINGLESS KPI’S
Elephant Number 2: Sport England:
As part of the 2006/2007 funding agreement Sport England required that UK Athletics achieve a set of targets. These targets, or Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) set at 1st April 2006, were to be achieved by 31st March 2007. Using the Freedom of Information act, a request was made to Sport England to declare the outcome of the targets.
Click Here to download Sport England's reply dated 10th August 2007. (This is a large PDF file of 1.5 megabytes, so a broadband connection is required).
Participation
Target set by Sport England on 01/04/06 to be achieved by 31/03/07
To establish how many people participate in athletics using data collected from Sport England's "Active People" Survey.
Declared Outcome
A sample of 350,000 people were used in the "Active People" survey, and it was determined that the number of adults (aged 16+) participating in athletics at least once a month was measured at 244,481. The figure for running/jogging was measured at 1,872,819.
Comment
Sport England's findings have no relevance for competitive athletics, including competitive road running. Participating in Athletics once a month, has as much to do with the sport of athletics, as going to the seaside has to do with the sport of swimming.
To measure participation you need only look at the results from an established athletics competition, and compare the number of competitors with previous years. This has the added benefit of being accurate beyond question, and taking 5 minutes.
UK Sport and Sport England
into Athletics
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
British Athletics has been in decline for ten years, and throughout that time those charged with reversing the trend have avoided mentioning the Elephant in the room.
The Athletics Elephant is an aggressive influence that distracts the sport from its core purpose, which is the provision of competition, which allow the athletes to funnel themselves upwards. The Athletics Elephant corrupts the environment by promising money then stipulating that all the money must be spent on the Elephant's own priorities.
It is the money distributed by the Elephant in the room, that pays the wages of over 150 athletics personnel, each with a job title which allows the Elephant to tick a box.
The Elephant says "You will not talk about me in negative terms, and you will not talk about me without first getting my permission". The Elephant insists that he is entitled to be present at all meaningful athletics meetings both sporting and administrative. The Elephant may inspect the office records of UK Athletics whenever it chooses. The Elephant demands compliance, whilst at the same time insists it should not be held accountable for the corrosive influence it exerts.
It gets worst when one appreciates that Athletics has two Elephants in the same room. UK Sport and Sport England are the Elephants in the room.
Information just released under the Freedom of Information act brings into sharp focus how these two money rich Elephants have poisoned the Athletics environment since they created UK Athletics in 1997. Let no apologist for UK Sport or UK Athletics get away with blaming obesity, computer games, selling of playing fields, popularity of football, bad coaching, the size of the opposition, or create any other smokescreen to hide behind. British children and young adults are as dynamic, explosive and motivated today as they ever have been. Each year over thirty 13/16 year old boys and girls impact the top twenty domestic all time rankings, over all athletic events. Young adults aged 17 to 20 are competitive at the international championships. It is only after they come under the influence of UK Athletics and UK Sport, that standards nose dive.
Christine Ohuruogu's gold medal win at the Osaka World Championships, within days of returning from a one year ban, demonstrates that the support of UK Sport and UK Athletics has no positive impact on who achieves success at major championships.
The first section discusses UK Sport's funding agreement with UK Athletics, and highlights the way that UK Sport have taken charge of athletics, in the quest for personal glory, and in doing so, have undermined its core value of fairness.
The second section looks into Sport England's funding terms with UK Athletics and highlights how the grass roots of the sport are being pressured into becoming mass participation "keep fit" clubs, at the expense of being dedicated athletic clubs.
UK SPORT’S FUNDING AGREEMENT
UK Sport (Responsibility for high performance)
On 31st July 2007, After representations under the Freedom of Information Act, UK Sport released the UK Athletics Funding Agreement for the period from 2005 to 2009.
Click Here to download the Funding Agreement. (This is a very large PDF file of 11 megabytes, so a broadband connection is required).
For the period from 1st April 2005 to 31st March 2009 UK Sport have promised UK Athletics £8.8 million to fund "World Class Performance" and "World Class Operations".
The terms of the funding agreement between UK Sport and UK Athletics gives an insight to the corrosive nature of UK Sport, and the unquestioning obedience of UK Athletics.
Because UK Sport are distributing public money, they are required to set targets. Described as "Key Performance Indicators" (KPI's), these targets are a double edged sword which can also highlight decline. However because decline will reflect badly on UK Sport, decline is not an option. The KPI's are designed to be easily manipulated.
For Example, UK Sport dictate that UK Athletics must increase the "number/percentage" of athletes winning medals at major Championships and reaching finals (Page 22). It would have been more honest to fix the number of athletes attending major Championships and increase the number of medals won or finals achieved. By targeting percentage improvements UK Athletics can manipulate the KPI by reducing the size of the team, which is exactly what they have done in Osaka at the expense of the throwers. This policy is harmful in the long term to all areas of the sport, including the major international championships who are deprived of the participation of an important athletics nation.
Disingenuous KPI's together with an array of other conditions passes control of athletics to UK Sport whilst UK Athletics exist merely to shield the quango from responsibility for failure. Examples of the control wielded by UK Sport are sprinkled throughout the funding agreement:
* UK Athletics will not discuss any aspect of the award without prior consultation with UK Sport
(Page
.* UK Sport will have access to inspect UK Athletics premises and records at any time
(Page 9).
* UK Sport have the right to attend all UK Athletics Board Meetings, Management Committee Meetings or similar meetings, and will be provided with the notice of such meetings, and agenda and the minutes.
(Page 10)
* Athletes will be required to enter into a legally enforceable contract based on a template provided by UK Sport
(Page 11)
* UK Sport have the right to attend squad sessions
(Page 24)
* UK Sport will monitor the media coverage of every Lottery funded athlete, and require that every athlete acknowledges Lottery Funding at least once per year.
(Page 24)
* UK Sport and UK Athletics will keep the content of the plan confidential and will not disclose any of its content to a third party
(Page 19)
We are a sport of Running, Jumping and Throwing. What on earth can be confidential in such a sport?
At a time when athletics needs its governing body to act as a protector of its values, it is stuck with UK Athletics who have a funding policy which favours one athlete over another, and adopts a selection policy for International Championships, which is almost entirely subjective. UK Athletics must be the most unnecessary and counter productive body in sport.
UK Sport have distorted the priorities of athletics by imposing its own social agenda onto the sport. What is a section like "Equality" (page 16) doing in a "High Performance" funding agreement? No sport in the UK has expressed the values of equality more emphatically than Athletics, and it does not need to be lectured on such matters by a quango.
The slippery nature of UK Sport is crystallised in the funding agreement in Section 23 on page 18. Under the heading of "Exclusion of Liability /Indemnity", this clause can be paraphrased as "UK Sport will not be held liable for any loss or damage caused by compliance with any part of this Funding Agreement". The next paragraph emphasises the point by requiring that "where UK Sport might be held liable by a third party, then UK Athletics will assume such liability on behalf of UK Sport".
UK Athletics are no more than a front for UK Sport which allows the quango to pull the strings whilst avoiding the responsibility. The belief that by investing in the pinnacle of the sport it is possible to elevate the elite performers away from the rest, is complete nonsense. If UK Sport were to focus their attention on building affordable facilities, and allow the athletics community to run the sport, standards in depth would again start to rise.
SPORT ENGLAND’S MEANINGLESS KPI’S
Elephant Number 2: Sport England:
As part of the 2006/2007 funding agreement Sport England required that UK Athletics achieve a set of targets. These targets, or Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) set at 1st April 2006, were to be achieved by 31st March 2007. Using the Freedom of Information act, a request was made to Sport England to declare the outcome of the targets.
Click Here to download Sport England's reply dated 10th August 2007. (This is a large PDF file of 1.5 megabytes, so a broadband connection is required).
Participation
Target set by Sport England on 01/04/06 to be achieved by 31/03/07
To establish how many people participate in athletics using data collected from Sport England's "Active People" Survey.
Declared Outcome
A sample of 350,000 people were used in the "Active People" survey, and it was determined that the number of adults (aged 16+) participating in athletics at least once a month was measured at 244,481. The figure for running/jogging was measured at 1,872,819.
Comment
Sport England's findings have no relevance for competitive athletics, including competitive road running. Participating in Athletics once a month, has as much to do with the sport of athletics, as going to the seaside has to do with the sport of swimming.
To measure participation you need only look at the results from an established athletics competition, and compare the number of competitors with previous years. This has the added benefit of being accurate beyond question, and taking 5 minutes.
#4
-
- Forum Member
-
- 5,646 posts Joined: 25-August 05
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Location:Boronia-Melbourne
Posted 14 July 2008 - 12:07 PM
yep the old 3D civilization is rotten through. ready for a new one ?
#5
-
- Forum Member
-
- 1,286 posts Joined: 07-July 06
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:sydney
Posted 14 July 2008 - 01:41 PM
maybe i can add the rapid decline of triathlons in nsw after triathlon australia appeared with its accreditation of courses and all the excitment over olympic inclusion,i didn't do a sprint distance event outside of the brat club for years,why would you pay all that in entry fees for a 50 minute event when i could race practically every weekend until xmas in olympic distance events then the great sri chinmoy 1/2 im event in canberra,the royal national park in january then keep racing throught to the club champs,blah blah,all gone pretty well
#6
-
- Forum Member
-
- 58 posts Joined: 29-March 05
CoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:Melbourne
Posted 15 July 2008 - 12:01 AM
spectator1957, on Jul 13 2008, 03:06 AM, said:
This is brilliant - good to know that its not just Athletics Australia with issues. Athletes and competing first as core business, not self career building by faceless suits with their own agendas.
#7
-
- Forum Member
-
- 5,646 posts Joined: 25-August 05
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Location:Boronia-Melbourne
Posted 15 July 2008 - 07:25 AM
so the problems are in UK, Canada, Australia.
#8
-
- Forum Member
-
- 1,286 posts Joined: 07-July 06
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:sydney
Posted 15 July 2008 - 08:30 AM
you are absolutely correct rudi,it has all to do woth the rise and rise of the professional administrator,i have had the misfortune to see it in triathlon,athletics and my own occupation with the rise of theempire of the health adminstrator
#9
-
- Forum Member
-
- 1,286 posts Joined: 07-July 06
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:sydney
Posted 15 July 2008 - 08:57 AM
there is a great play by bertold brecht called "the resisable rise of alberto ui" which i think toa small extent explains the reasons why these people do what they do,i think there will be a day when there will be a professional class of adminstrators and no athletics whatsoever,same with health,suits everywhere and the whole place in chaos
#10
-
- Forum Member
-
- 1,356 posts Joined: 08-June 04
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:Sydney
Posted 15 July 2008 - 09:25 AM
pjw, on Jul 10 2008, 10:08 PM, said:
From track Canada - an email copy that was sent to Martin Goulet, the High Performance Director of Athletics Canada over non-selection of their best 10k runner who had seemingly achieved the required standard and was their trial winner yet was not selected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it wasn't clear, my email was directed at Martin Goulet and company
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Vancouver <run1500@yahoo.com>
To: track-canada@mailman.srv.ualberta.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:16:37 AM
Subject: Officials are the problem
Martin,
You and the various so-called officials are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This nonsense has been going on forever, I remember it even during the Jerome Drayton days, putting all kinds of obstacles in the paths of the athletes.
You can talk all you want about only sending medallists, but look at where Athletics is in Canada? Where are the elite Marathoners, men and women? Where are the runners coming up behind Sullivan?
For men, we have one runner under 29 minutes in the rankings, and no runners under 2:15 in the marathon.
For the women, one under 9:00 minutes for 3000, 1 under 15:30 in the 5K, 1 under 33 for 10K and 1 under 2:34 for the marathon.
To me a long time supporter of Athletics in Canada, for Athletics Canada and the various Olympic committees, its all about how can we do less for our athletes, not more.
In the US, the new crop of athletes are setting records, here we are setting records in how few athletes are competing at the international level.
Take some responsibility for this mess for a change.
George Muenz
Vancouver, BC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it wasn't clear, my email was directed at Martin Goulet and company
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Vancouver <run1500@yahoo.com>
To: track-canada@mailman.srv.ualberta.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:16:37 AM
Subject: Officials are the problem
Martin,
You and the various so-called officials are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This nonsense has been going on forever, I remember it even during the Jerome Drayton days, putting all kinds of obstacles in the paths of the athletes.
You can talk all you want about only sending medallists, but look at where Athletics is in Canada? Where are the elite Marathoners, men and women? Where are the runners coming up behind Sullivan?
For men, we have one runner under 29 minutes in the rankings, and no runners under 2:15 in the marathon.
For the women, one under 9:00 minutes for 3000, 1 under 15:30 in the 5K, 1 under 33 for 10K and 1 under 2:34 for the marathon.
To me a long time supporter of Athletics in Canada, for Athletics Canada and the various Olympic committees, its all about how can we do less for our athletes, not more.
In the US, the new crop of athletes are setting records, here we are setting records in how few athletes are competing at the international level.
Take some responsibility for this mess for a change.
George Muenz
Vancouver, BC.
The real reason why Canadian distance running has been on the decline is because not enough guys and girls are out there training their balls off, like they were 10-20 years ago. I agree with George, that administrators can be a painful obstacle to the success of some athletes. The best thing runners can do for their cause is to get out and perform at level where they MUST be chosen to compete for their country.; eg if there is s qualifying mark, then actually do it.
#11
-
- Forum Member
-
- 1,241 posts Joined: 23-July 03
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:Melbourne
Posted 15 July 2008 - 10:07 AM
Canada used to produce some great runners yet now they cannot find anyone who can run sub 2.15. What happened to all the depth of british and australian distance runners ? We have gone backwards while other countries are still surging forwards. Maybe we should be less arrogant about our superior knowledge and techniques and look at what we were doing 30 years ago and what many developing countries are doing now. The selectors and officials have become very conveniant scapegoats.
#12
-
- Forum Member
-
- 1,293 posts Joined: 07-May 02
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:Newcastle
Posted 16 July 2008 - 11:18 AM
lactatehead, on Jul 15 2008, 10:07 AM, said:
Canada used to produce some great runners yet now they cannot find anyone who can run sub 2.15. What happened to all the depth of british and australian distance runners ? We have gone backwards while other countries are still surging forwards. Maybe we should be less arrogant about our superior knowledge and techniques and look at what we were doing 30 years ago and what many developing countries are doing now. The selectors and officials have become very conveniant scapegoats.
Well,I agree to a large extent with the view that the athletes have to earn their place.But that selection place must be there when they have earned it. It works both ways.If a promising young athlete cannot see national selection and ultimate Olympic selection as the true end result of their effort,RATHER THAN THE DISGRACEFUL SELECTOR DISCRETION which we and Canada use,then why would they put in the years of work to get there?
In Australia we have many examples of athletes working their guts out to reach that level and then being stuffed up by those who you describe as scapegoats.I have seen it in over 40 years of Australian experience and it still continues.
Surely,as a nation at least as prosperous as USA we could guarantee at least the available team spots are filled,rather than imposing ridiculous qualifying regimes on our athletes in order to cover the "suits" inability to get government/privatre funding to ensure a full team selection.
Jim Beisty
#13
-
- Forum Member
-
- 5,646 posts Joined: 25-August 05
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Location:Boronia-Melbourne
Posted 16 July 2008 - 12:08 PM
thanks Jim, exactly my sentiment.
The young boys could see what is happening, so they decide to enlist to some silly games like aussie rulles instead,
back in my country it was flow to football, girls to handball, or to XCskiing etc.
The kids will put in teh hard work if they knew they would not be misstreated, tehy are even to work hard for teh love of the sport and not compare the financial differences between athletics and some games, but they need to feel they love for athletics will not be misused and mistreated.
In my home country and other surrounding countries the situation often makes runners not to join assocuiation and be free of registered atyhletics club and be part of running only clubs outside of athletic association and participating only in funruns
instead, some of these clubs forming unoficial running associations gaing influence etc, perhaps this is what needs to happend in future...
Yesterday profesional cycling team unanymously voted to step out of the cycling pro tour (UCI or ICU ?) and form new association with teh organizers of Giro, TdF and Vuelta...
The young boys could see what is happening, so they decide to enlist to some silly games like aussie rulles instead,
back in my country it was flow to football, girls to handball, or to XCskiing etc.
The kids will put in teh hard work if they knew they would not be misstreated, tehy are even to work hard for teh love of the sport and not compare the financial differences between athletics and some games, but they need to feel they love for athletics will not be misused and mistreated.
In my home country and other surrounding countries the situation often makes runners not to join assocuiation and be free of registered atyhletics club and be part of running only clubs outside of athletic association and participating only in funruns
instead, some of these clubs forming unoficial running associations gaing influence etc, perhaps this is what needs to happend in future...
Yesterday profesional cycling team unanymously voted to step out of the cycling pro tour (UCI or ICU ?) and form new association with teh organizers of Giro, TdF and Vuelta...
#14
-
- Forum Member
-
- 5,646 posts Joined: 25-August 05
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Location:Boronia-Melbourne
Posted 16 July 2008 - 01:39 PM
just reading the article about Radcliff's reserve...
the attitude in UK and australia seems to be bit different in marathon selection.
because of the Radcliff injury, there are 4 female marathon runners selected, one of them as possible potential last minute Radcliff replacement (which migh be against the olympics rules) showing that UK athletics is trying to fill all 3 women marathon spots for any cost... hmm
the attitude in UK and australia seems to be bit different in marathon selection.
because of the Radcliff injury, there are 4 female marathon runners selected, one of them as possible potential last minute Radcliff replacement (which migh be against the olympics rules) showing that UK athletics is trying to fill all 3 women marathon spots for any cost... hmm
Edited by Rudolf, 16 July 2008 - 01:40 PM.
#15
-
- Forum Member
-
- 67 posts Joined: 24-August 07
CoolRunner
Posted 16 July 2008 - 02:53 PM
I've seen the career bureaucrat take over athletics in my short time. I think its was the early 90s when the ATFCA lost its long time source of funding. They couldn't replace the funding themselves so to continue operating they had to make a deal with AA and that was the end of their independent strength. Since then AA has continued to erode the power of the coaches by controlling all of the coaching jobs in this country. Now senior and experienced coaches have no authority or influence anymore. Why? Because most of the coaching jobs in this country are filled by people who can't actually produce athletes and only the coaches the bureaucrats approve of can be appointed. Any coach who speaks out or doesn't want to play the suckup game is out.
So a few years ago the ASC freaked out at AA because of a continual slide in performances. So an independent report was created to solve the problem.
newsflash "PROBLEM NOT SOLVED".
Because the problem was not identified and is not being addressed.
New Zealand has identified the problem and since 2001 has been embarking on fixing it. They are well ahead of us, Canada and the UK in this regard. Here are a few links and a PDF of good things they are doing
http://www.sparc.org.nz/sparc-invests-6000...nzs-top-coaches
http://www.athletics...le.aspx?ID=2321
http://www.sparc.org...shboard/coaches
pete
So a few years ago the ASC freaked out at AA because of a continual slide in performances. So an independent report was created to solve the problem.
newsflash "PROBLEM NOT SOLVED".
Because the problem was not identified and is not being addressed.
New Zealand has identified the problem and since 2001 has been embarking on fixing it. They are well ahead of us, Canada and the UK in this regard. Here are a few links and a PDF of good things they are doing
http://www.sparc.org.nz/sparc-invests-6000...nzs-top-coaches
http://www.athletics...le.aspx?ID=2321
http://www.sparc.org...shboard/coaches
pete
Edited by pjw, 16 July 2008 - 06:37 PM.
#16
-
- Forum Member
-
- 1,241 posts Joined: 23-July 03
1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:Melbourne
Posted 16 July 2008 - 03:59 PM
Jimboy, on Jul 15 2008, 07:18 PM, said:
Well,I agree to a large extent with the view that the athletes have to earn their place.But that selection place must be there when they have earned it. It works both ways.If a promising young athlete cannot see national selection and ultimate Olympic selection as the true end result of their effort,RATHER THAN THE DISGRACEFUL SELECTOR DISCRETION which we and Canada use,then why would they put in the years of work to get there?
In Australia we have many examples of athletes working their guts out to reach that level and then being stuffed up by those who you describe as scapegoats.I have seen it in over 40 years of Australian experience and it still continues.
Surely,as a nation at least as prosperous as USA we could guarantee at least the available team spots are filled,rather than imposing ridiculous qualifying regimes on our athletes in order to cover the "suits" inability to get government/privatre funding to ensure a full team selection.
Jim Beisty
In Australia we have many examples of athletes working their guts out to reach that level and then being stuffed up by those who you describe as scapegoats.I have seen it in over 40 years of Australian experience and it still continues.
Surely,as a nation at least as prosperous as USA we could guarantee at least the available team spots are filled,rather than imposing ridiculous qualifying regimes on our athletes in order to cover the "suits" inability to get government/privatre funding to ensure a full team selection.
Jim Beisty
Really, I was just having a rant about the drop in standards in the developed nations. I agree that there is a problem with the selection process and I am not defending it.
#17
-
- Forum Member
-
- 48 posts Joined: 18-June 04
CoolRunner
- Gender:Female
- Location:New England NSW
Posted 12 August 2008 - 09:55 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if AA is required to answer some serious questions from the ASC following the olympics.
PR
PR
#18
-
- Forum Member
-
- 37 posts Joined: 18-October 08
CoolRunner
Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:13 AM
But I suppose the footy field is getting sorted and that is the most important thing, isn't it?
Edited by thecheersquad, 22 December 2008 - 03:59 PM.
#19
-
- Forum Member
-
- 37 posts Joined: 18-October 08
CoolRunner
Posted 18 November 2008 - 06:39 AM
Edited by thecheersquad, 22 December 2008 - 04:00 PM.
#20
-
- Forum Member
-
- 825 posts Joined: 29-November 02
veryCoolRunner
- Location:brisbane
Posted 18 November 2008 - 09:36 AM
Well just look at the calibre of the journalist. Rebecca Wilson couldn't get anything right.
#21
-
- Forum Member
-
- 37 posts Joined: 18-October 08
CoolRunner
Posted 18 November 2008 - 10:59 AM
Let's just think outside the square,
Edited by thecheersquad, 22 December 2008 - 04:01 PM.
#22
-
- Forum Member
-
- 423 posts Joined: 11-February 03
veryCoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:nsw
Posted 18 November 2008 - 11:44 AM
cheersquad - i agree. if someone takes a potshot at soccer the people in charge come back with a well-thought out justification for why they are doing the right thing. in running, aa do a crap job and everyone says it. what do aa do ? nothing. hellloooooo aa are you out there ? they never respond. even when cr worked with aa to help increase aa profile, they did jackshit.
#23
-
- Forum Member
-
- 825 posts Joined: 29-November 02
veryCoolRunner
- Location:brisbane
Posted 18 November 2008 - 12:28 PM
Sorry for the hijack cheersquad, just couldn't resist..
#24
-
- Forum Member
-
- 37 posts Joined: 18-October 08
CoolRunner
Posted 19 November 2008 - 05:47 AM
glenda, on Nov 18 2008, 01:28 PM, said:
Sorry for the hijack cheersquad, just couldn't resist..
Edited by thecheersquad, 22 December 2008 - 04:01 PM.
#25
-
- Forum Member
-
- 37 posts Joined: 18-October 08
CoolRunner
Posted 20 November 2008 - 05:55 AM
Ok, The Australian sports commission has released this paper on sport in Australia - see link below - it is 267 pages long, I have only read the executive summary and the findings - so far
http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pd...al_20_Oct_1.pdf
http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pd...al_20_Oct_1.pdf
Edited by thecheersquad, 22 December 2008 - 04:02 PM.
#26
-
- Forum Member
-
- 37 posts Joined: 18-October 08
CoolRunner
Posted 24 November 2008 - 06:11 AM
EQUAL PRIZE MONEY FOR MEN AND WOMEN
Can anyone tell me why it is still ok for the prize money in pro racing to be double, triple, quadruple for th mens event over the womens event.
HELLO IT IS 2008 - GEE NEARLY 2009! I thought we left the dark ages.
Can anyone tell me why it is still ok for the prize money in pro racing to be double, triple, quadruple for th mens event over the womens event.
HELLO IT IS 2008 - GEE NEARLY 2009! I thought we left the dark ages.
Edited by thecheersquad, 22 December 2008 - 04:03 PM.
#27
-
- Forum Member
-
- 423 posts Joined: 11-February 03
veryCoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:nsw
Posted 24 November 2008 - 08:13 AM
Quote
EQUAL PRIZE MONEY FOR MEN AND WOMEN
Can anyone tell me why it is still ok for the prize money in pro racing to be double, triple, quadruple for th mens event over the womens event.
Can anyone tell me why it is still ok for the prize money in pro racing to be double, triple, quadruple for th mens event over the womens event.
Whether it makes sense or not is a completely different subject.
