How to improve amature athletics in Canada?

[lacquement]

Time and time again the issue of lack of funding comes up with respect to Canada's performances at Olympic and other international competitions. The reaility of the situation, to me anyways, is that we will never get the funding that we want/(need?). In lieu of this, I propose we look instead at better ways to spend the money that is currently available (and the extra money that has been recently pledged by the ministor for sport). Perhaps thgough some discussion we could come up with some suggestions to send to the people in charge of making the decisions?

So what is it that would be of great help to us as athletes in our development to international contenders?

It would seem to make sense that inorder for us to have truly top level senior athletes, we need athletes that are challenging at the international level as youth and junior aged athletes. So what can we do to make our junior athletes better? perhaps month long training camps in the summer based at universities that are partially funded by athletes? Help in locating top level therapists in a given area (this could be VERY VERY helpfull to yound athletes who have no clue where to turn when injured)? Perhaps low level funding to highschool and university students so that they don't have to got get very demanding jobs if they choose to stay in canada to pay for their education (funding fromt he government, no schools, so that the athlete gets to choose where in Canada they would be best off).

For the senior athletes, I think many could benefit from more centralisation. While there are high performance centers and national endurance centers, the incentives for an athlete to leave a current training group to join a center don't seem to great. Would such things as say Athletics Canada buying a large house for one of the national endurance centers where tp level athletes would be able to live together and pay some kind of rediculously cheap rent (to cover taxes/utilities, etc) help? 1300 a month could go alot further when you don't have to worry about where to live. It could be like the Nike Oregon Project.... the Athletics Canada Guelph and Victoria Projects....

I'm sure there are others out there with ideas and I'm sure the COA and AC could use them. I'm also serious about sending this list to them.

[travel another road]

Everyone complains about funding..deal with it..it wont change and its not the problem

The problem is, we have very poor talent in amateur athletics it all goes to the pro sports, and before you say thats because theres no funding..in this case that isn't true. Long before funding becomes an object these kids have chosen other sports. Sports like track, swimming, wrestling, judo..these are very inexpensive sports compared to the sports that we lose people in such as golf, travel baseball, football and obviously hockey.

A 12 year old child doesnt say...hmmmm I'm going to play expensive hockey because theres money down the road at age 22 if im top 500 in the world as opposed to thinking....hmmm im going to join an inexpensive track team cause theres no money down the road at 22 unless i am the best in the world....these thoughts dont enter into the mind of young kids, nor do they enter into the thoughts of parents. Parents would love to have their kids playing inexpensive non spinal injury risking sports.

So the problem is not funding it is what sports the children are choosing when they are kids.

Now you also can not blame the education system for cutting gym teachers and nutriional and physical education because the majority of olympians that medal are in the 23-28 year old range. And the current 23-28yeard olds grew up in the ERA of great nutritional and physical education in grade and highschool.

Funding is not the problem, would it really help if we sent some 3:45 1500 guys to the olympics..or if we sent a 7000pt decathlete..or a 14.20 110hurdler...or a 2:30 marathoner...NO IT WOULDN'T....the problem is talent identification at an early age, and the steering of kids into different sports.

Maybe we should look at our UNIVERSITY EDUCATION SYSTEM and see what criteria is put into the selection of who gets into graduate programs(that turn into ROLE MODEL jobs in society). Who are our teachers, who are our government agents, who are our police officers, who are our elected officials.

These are the people who lead tomorow, and these are the people who help schools and communities grow. It should not just be marks that dictate who gets into programs. I do not think whining about funding is going to help. I would rather have my tax dollars go to making sure that our leaders of tomorow are both educated and deserving, grades aren't everything, well rounded people can go alot further than some tool with a 99% who has never left his house to experience real life. I DO NOT WANT my tax dollars going to a house that provides free rent for eric gillis, jamie epp, reid coolsaet, chris moulton, delisle, or dave milne. Why because none of these individuals are going to bring Canada International medals. not that medals are the be all and end all of sports. It's just that this current generation for the most part..a few individuals such as Perdita, Boswell withstanding, is a lost cause. It's time to go back to the roots and identify athletes at a younger age.

Now I know alot of people will be upset with this post so I will explain myself, all I'm saying is just because someone runs 345 in a 1500 doesn't mean he is god and deserves my tax money. 345 is nothing, what is it in the world stage? top 2000?
You tnf'ers make it seem like Canadas distance program is the best thing since the indian discovered the bow and arrow.

To further my point, Whos is the 100th best Canadian NHL player, lets go with Bryan McCabe. I'm willing to bet that if he chose Track as a kid he could probably be top 5 in Canada in a variety of events, and qualify for the olympics. Now for those of you who say I'm an idiot, lets look at the 300th best, Ethan Moreau. Now I choose him cause he actually did track in highschool and won OFSAA I believe in discus, and had he chose discus over hockey, I bet Mr Tunks wouldnt be the only canadian discus thrower finishing in the top 5 at world caliber meets. Now imagine if the top Canadian athletes chose Track or Swimming or Wrestling.
I bet Guy Lafleur could have been an AMAZING sprinter or hurdler, what made him choose hockey? There was no money for pro sports back then.

Bottom line, funding athletes that are borderline national caliber in a different country, is not the answer. Funding the selection process of the people who actually make a difference in childrens lives is a much better choice.

Think before you respond to this, I know this will anger people, so take a few minutes to collect your thoughts.

[Delisle]

I often hear the comparison between Australia and Canada in this case. They say how can a country of 20 million (AUS) be so much more successful than a country of 30 million (CAN) at the Summer Games?

I don't have the answer, but that last post could be a good candidate. Say you grow up in Australia, I don't think you're surrounded by the big money-making sports such as hockey,baseball,basketball and football like we are here in Canada.
I don't know if they (australians) tend to focus on other major sports, but as far as I know, they have a much deeper contingent of amateur athletes tryin to break through as opposed to us

[Jerry McGuire]

Travel Another Road, you seriously are an idiot, but you do pose a great point... Everyone is complaining about funding and its not ONLY the lack of funding that is preventing us from getting more medals at the Olympics. Everyone seems so fixated on funding but that isn't our only problem, BUT it is still a factor.

Lets look at the World Cross teams from this year. Short course was funded, long course was not. Most of the top talent went to short course (and the top canuck finisher from each of the long teams went because he/she doubled from short). Short course women were third and men sixth (less than 10 points from fourth) and the long courses did not fair as well. There are some athletes who did not go to long course simply because it was not funded. This is just an example to show you that when AC or the government spends money they get results.
Funding does make a difference and the Aussie example above is a good one. 65 Million in funding for Canuck sports and 300 million for Aussies. Training at altitude, having enough coaches and being able to spend more time training are all very important and unatainable by most without funding. If you want to be world class you cannot work full-time, and I'm not talking about being a nationally ranked runner, I'm talking about being a world-class runner (If you want an empirical standard, lets say top 100 in the world). So if a guy is on the brink of being a world class runner out of University what opportunities do they have? They won't get too much from corporate sponsors (even though there is probably a lot more money there to get) so they need a way to live and train like a world class athlete. If there isn't this opportunity then they simply won't be able to make the commitment and find a job instead of struggle.
Does a 3:45 runner deserve to get loads of funding, probably not. A 3:40 runner not getting enough resources is the problem.
Funding does help runners become great runners, but no, its not going to change Canada from a hockey country to a track country.

[travel another road]

You can not compare us to the Aussies, they have 2 major sports, Cricket, and Rugby, after that kids can play what they want.

Also the reason short course was better was because it was our better runners such as Mondor, sullivan, Bourgois, Hayden, Douma, Elmore, Connely, Pells, and I believe Courtney inman is baccock..So thats basically our best distance team in Canada, who chose to run short course.
Now lets look at our Long course.
taylor murphy, jeremy deer, booth, bourgous doubled..matt johnson, steve osadiuk, stallwood, zambrano, rody, mills, labraque and mondor doubles

Gee I wonder why the short course team did better, it was not because of money its because the talent decided to run there..if youswapped the 4 teams and put no money behind any of them. the first list of names would win regardless of distance.

Money isn't the answer talent is.

There will also never be money for Cross Country, unless it is brought in with track and field and they have to do so many international events per year. However that won't happen cause it would force throwers, sprinters, jumpers to compete in more track events a year just to get the same amount of money.

[Jerry]

Travel Another Road

Courtney Inman is Babcock, what is that supposed to mean?

The athletes went to short course because it was funded. I realize many of the athletes on the short course are more more suited to short course but I know if it wasn't funded half of them wouldn't of been there. And if they would of funded the long course the other half of the team would have been running the 8 or 12k.

[McGuire]

"Gee I wonder why the short course team did better, it was not because of money its because the talent decided to run there..if youswapped the 4 teams and put no money behind any of them. the first list of names would win regardless of distance."

Ya but the first of list of names wouldn't have even gone. They went because it was funded.

Another point is that even athletes on the long-course try to get on the short because it was funded. Do you think Long-course runners would have been better off training for 12k then chasing a 7:57 or 9:10 3000m for the short course? If the long-course was funded athletes would just train for that event and hence get better results. So funding would help preparation for yet another reason.

[are u kidding]

you guys are idiots...the better athletes didn't run the short course because it was funded...it was the other way around the short course was funded because it had better athletes...Canada knew that our talent lied in the short course and thats why it was funded...if it was the other way around they would have funded the long course they didn't just flip a coin...

[Jerry]

R U Kidding.

That is completely true. But you're missing the point. If Canada did not fund any team you would not see all the best runners at world cross. You hit the nail on the head with the reason why the short course is funded but that is not what is being discussed. If the long-course was funded instead of the short course (notice no one is saying this is a better option, this is just used to make a point) you would see a better long-course team. Guys simply turn this team down cause they don't want to pay, thats a fact.

So you think you are really smart and others are idiots because you raise a correct point but your point doesn't carry any weight in this argument.

[Big John]

Last time I checked, I did not see Cross Country on the Olympic Schedule.

Does anybody know where I can tune in to watch the olympic cross country race?

Whats that? Oh whats that there is no olympic cross country?

Oh that must make Jerry Mcguires point about lack of funding for cross country off topic since we are talking about funding amateur sports at the olympics.

So lets stick to the topic Jerry unless you also want to start funding these other non olympic sports.

Family of 5 white water rafting
family of 5 picnic
Synchronized Equestrian
clogging a toilet
unclogging a toilet
Fastest keyboard typer in the world
conference calling
special needs proctoring for university students
and let's not forget
Rock Paper Scissors

[gee]

I wonder if Big John and Are U kidding are the same person?

World Cross is actually a great example of how funding works and attracts the best talent. If you can't tie a link between funding World Cross and Track then you are truly an idiot.

[xc]

I think it would make the most sense to take the funding money from XC and put it into track and field. Let's be honest XC is not a spectator sport and there is little money to be made. Although maybe not worded properly a good pt was made that XC is not an olympic sport...and there is a reason for that. It is not popular and has very few fans other than the few aspiring xc runners like ourselves. There are enough distance races out there, road races, and marathons for long distance runners...maybe canada should stop funding weak sports and put more money into the better ones.

[facts]

In a very popular poll Cross country was number one to be included in future Olympics. Cross country is very popular in europe and there is a lot of money in the sport through advertising and TV deals. World Cross gives many track athletes world level competition that can be taken over into track. Cross country has very high participation levels in high school and University in Canada. People understand the sport, it is just not marketed properly right now.

[the ball]

travel another road: Bravo ! that was, arguably, the best post i've ever read on this recurring subject. It was novel, thorough, and logically evidenced. Many of you reading would do yourself a favor by rereading the post and thinking some more about it .

[Just wondering]

If Cross Country is put into the olympics. Will guys like Sullivan run the highly funded short course or starve himself to death by going for the glory of the 1500?

[congrats]

Ladies and gentlemen... the dumbest question to date..

"If Cross Country is put into the olympics. Will guys like Sullivan run the highly funded short course or starve himself to death by going for the glory of the 1500?"

Who said short course is a better financial option than the 1500? Did you know the 1500 at the Olympics is also funded?
Short course is being compared to long course, not the 1500. Sully obviously makes more money running 1500's.

[The Ball]

Jerry McGuire's post is actually better, my mistake.

[Just Wondering]

Actually CONGRATS post was the best..obviosuly I was joking about what event Sully would run.
so Congrats Congrats..you are the dumbest poster on this thread yet, i got a big laughg out of that even funnier than the guy who wants clogging and unclogging toilets in the olympics

[m]

I believe funds are not being allocated properly. AC employees are so complacent in their jobs that change rarely happens.

I believe all senior teams at world xc should be funded.

I have been on a couple world xc teams. It amazing the differnce in attitudes between the long and short course teams. ForThe most part the long course team is not truly devoted to the games. There is a number of reasons: !)ac jerks the long course guys around until a month before the worlds, not making a final decision on selection until the short course is choosen. So most of the long course guys are preparing with other goals in mind. 2)Even during the training camp Martin, has team seminars where he lets everyone know xc is a secondary goal to track. What about the pure distance guys.

Obviously the short course team is more talented. But some of the long course guys palce better than the short guys at nats...they should have 2 seperate races at nats. Across the world the short course is nothing. Everyone watches the long course...what will AC DO WHEN short course is eliminated. Why not put all the fund into olympics and world track??

Canada i believe is the only country that does not fully fund all xc teams.

For christ sakes, AC fully funded NACAC this summer. That was the shitiest meet i have ever seen. The majority of the team would have self funded themseleves, but AC IS unable to fund an additional 14 xc athletes.

Canada neeeds to more of national ranking system when allocating funds if there not willing to fund teams. Much like the aussie system.

[i agree with last poster]

i have been on teams in the past-- funded as well as self funded.


My mindset and prep aretotally different.

On a self funded team your primary concern is coming up with the money to attend the competitions. Once you arrive at the competition AC bombards you with meetings and restrictions. I know its not the right attitude, but all i'm thinking is fuck u AC i've self funded 3 grand and now u want to control me.

When the team is fully funded. An athlete realizes your their to get a job done. Because have not had to raise the funds the athlete is able to concentrate on training (not having to worry about paying the bills). U ltimately not arriving in europe feeling like its holiday time.

Its funny how many athletes wanting to make the team to have a nice holiday.

I wonder how many athletes would of paid theere way to compete in rat infested india ....maybe 1???

[Jerry]

good points by people who know their shit and have seen both sides of the coin.

[cross country in the olympics]

1912 Stockholm, 1920 Antwerp and the 1924 Paris Olympics had cross country
www.olympic.org/uk/athletes/heroes/bio_uk.asp?PAR_I_ID=53102