World XC Day 2

[katie400]

3RD - Canada       87

830    Mondor Émilie 13 <br>693    Douma-Hussar Carmen 17 <br>694    Elmore Malindi 22 <br>692    Connelly Tina 35 <br>695    Inman Courtney (37) <br>697    Pells Leah (57) 

[Jeff]

Amazing run by those girls. Henock stepped up again and proved he is an awsome cross country guy with 22nd in the Junior Race 34 seconds ahead of next North American.

Long course guys didn't fair too well although Joel B. coming back in 67th after a good run in the 4km proves as always, he's fit. I think the results speak for themselves when it comes to the funding issue. When you put money into a team ( short course teams who were 3rd and 6th ) you get results.

Great job to all who competed for Canada.

[Eldridge]

thats an impressive run by henok. i xpected a top 30 by him but 22 is great. did anyone c the posission splits by woods? he was 1st canadian through 1lap at 33(i think). i think if he had run a smarter race he woulda been low 80s or high 70s at least.

[SI]

Ok coldneck, two questions for whenever you log back on here. How did Bekele really look and do you think Tadesse is really only 18?

[Tzdimslaw]

Jeff said:

I think the results speak for themselves when it comes to the funding issue. When you put money into a team ( short course teams who were 3rd and 6th ) you get results.

While I think it is important to properly fund our athletes, I cannot agree with your "self-evident" assessment. I believe that the decision of which teams get funded is decided based on which teams are most likely to place highly at the championship. It is not a case of more funding allowing athletes to train harder and then have better results. By the time some of the short course guys knew they were on the team, they had only another month before Worlds - hardly enough time for the money to make a major difference in their training. I suspect the reason why our teams did well this year was because there are some very good runners in (or representing) Canada. And big ups to that.

Regards,
Tzdimslaw

[Jeff]

I agree with you. However your perception of my message was not what I had intended it to be. All I am saying is that if a team is funded most of the top athletes are gonna want to be on that team. 2800$ is a lot of money therefore meaning the top athletes generally want to be on the 4km team. There are guys on the 4km who in the grand sceme of things are more 12km type guys. Look at Mondor and Joel B., I doubt either of them wanted to double but they did anyways as to get their trip paid for (I don't know this for sure but it is my assumption).

If both short and long course teams were fully funded, I'm sure a few of the guys who turned down their spot for the long course would've been there. Therefore, funding would produce better teams / results, IMHO.

Great job by all who competed as is.

[Brooksy]

My question is, will the athletes recieve the prize money for third place? or will athletics canada take a huge chunk of it because it was a fully funded team?

[Chris Moulton]

I am interested to see how AC reacts, is it not quite possible that next year the women could medal both in short and long, there is a ton of depth on the women's side in Canada and since the africans are more beatable for many reasons on the women's side at least in the team competition. Why does AC not fund both a long and a short team for the ladies, they appear to have earned it. Consider the following potential lineups for next year

Short
Mondor
Babcock (if she only runs one go long)
Douma
Elmore
Inman
Pells
Edmonson

Long
Mondor
Babcock
Connely
Dupre
Stallwood
Kroshus
M. Carson
Quinn
Struyk

Definetly medal contenders especially if Babcock would run World XC, plus there are countless girls I left out CIS champ Whightmen, Heather Lee, plus all the girls who went this year and countless others. I am only focusing on people who are done school or will be done their elgibility for indoors.

I just find it somewhat absurd that our best marathoner (arguably) is running 4k cross, granted Radcliffe does and Tina ran extremely well (especially considering her injury), but I think short course funding moves our athletes out of their best event, for example look at Joel Bourgioes he is my opinion a much better 12k cross runner then 4k cross (although the results were reversed), but yet to get the funding he has to run 4k, I understand the principle but why not fund the top 4 for each team that would only add 6 funding spots and then fill the rest of the teams with self funded athletes, or better yet bring in enough sponsorship dollars to allow our teams to be fully funded at the very least at the senior level.

[gorun1]

You are forgetting Labrecque. After 2 years off she is really making a great comeback with a 4:22 and 9:30 indoors. She could challenge for the 4k next year.

[gorun1]

You are forgetting Labrecque. After 2 years off she is really making a great comeback with a 4:22 and 9:30 indoors completely by herself. She could challenge for the 4k next year.

[coldneck]

didn`t get to see Bekele too much in my race but he looked awesome the next day in the long-course. Didn`t really see Tadesse...

[SI]

Chris said:

Why does AC not fund both a long and a short team for the ladies, they appear to have earned it.

Apparently, effective 2007, there won't have to be a choice. No more short course and a one day event. Two decisions arrived at by the IAAF Council on the week-end.