|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 7, 2009 13:11:07 GMT -5
www.athletics.ca/files//NationalTeamPrograms/NationalTeams/SelectionCriteria/2010%20XC%20TEAM%20SELECTION%20GUIDELINES-FINAL-EN.PDFOver the last few years, Athletics Canada has worked to build a comprehensive National Cross Country team concept focused on high performance team results. This year that trend will continue with participation at the World Cross Country Championships dependant on success at the regional level. In 2010, Trinidad & Tobago will play host to an expanded regional championships including all of the Americas. Bydgoszcz, Poland hosts the World Cross Country Championships and AC looks to send only teams that are ready to take on the World...
|
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 7, 2009 13:15:02 GMT -5
Hmmmmm....there's that wording again......whoever writes for AC should also write speeches for Harper.
But I digress: This regional thing is interesting......
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 7, 2009 13:24:23 GMT -5
Thoughts on this part?
"FUNDING
While team fundraising initiatives are being considered, athletes will be responsible for some self-funding. The Cross Country National Team Program will be partially funded by Guelph sponsor AGSI. Significant funding towards this project can be earned through top 3 placing at the Trials. Individual and team champions at the Americas Championship are also eligible to receive additional IAAF funding towards the World Cross Country Championships."
Note - participation at Trinidad and Tobago is mandatory to compete in Poland. The program also mentions (requires?) "Individual select competitive and training opportunities" in January/February.
A bit of vagueness to the whole thing... I scanned the two page document, and can't honestly say if this represents good opportunities or impediments to either/both athlete development and/or high level competitive opportunities.
Anyone good at reading legalese can better interpret it for us all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 7, 2009 13:25:32 GMT -5
For those that don't bother reading these, I'll copy out:
SELECTION PROCESS for the Americas XC Championship
-Athletes MUST finish in the top 8 ELIGIBLE places at the Trials to be considered for selection;
-Team selections will be based on order of finish at the Trials with the top 6 being automatically selected. Others will be in the selection pool should any of the first 6 be unable to participate;
-In order for a team to be selected, a minimum of 5 ELIGIBLE finishers must declare for the team;
-A minimum of 4 of the top 6 finishers MUST declare for a team to be selected in each event;
-Individual National Champions ONLY are still selectable in the event a team is not selected;
-Junior athletes must be born in 1991, 1992 or 1993 to be considered eligible
|
|
|
|
Post by robkitz on Oct 7, 2009 15:50:40 GMT -5
So, the selection pool for the worlds team has been reduced again, down to 8, or am I reading this wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 7, 2009 16:58:40 GMT -5
It seems like they're trying to have it both ways. They say "We no longer want to send full teams to Worlds unless they're competitive, so we're going to focus on the regional championships." But then they make the selection criteria for the regional championships (top 8) tighter than I can ever recall them being for Worlds. So if a couple of guys with spring marathon plans or a lack of $2000 to spare happen to make the top 8, suddenly the entire team is disqualified from going even to NACAC.
This sort of reminds me of earlier this decade when Olympic standards were raised way out of reach, and the official line was that athletes should develop at lesser international competitions like Commonwealth and Pan Ams -- except that the standards for Commonwealth and Pan Ams were just as hard as the Olympics. If you're going to promote "developmental" opportunities, and self-funded ones at that, why not at least make them accessible to people who need development?
|
|
|
|
Post by feens on Oct 7, 2009 17:10:49 GMT -5
"A minimum of 4 of the top 6 finishers MUST declare for a team to be selected in each event;" - I'm curious, is this a new stipulation?
Last I checked there often seem to be a number of our competitive runners who race in Nat XC's, but have no intention of going to Worlds. In this case, for them to do so and finish top 6 would hinder those who are hoping to make the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by lambert on Oct 7, 2009 21:22:20 GMT -5
The selection pool for Worlds is as follows:
SELECTION PROCESS for the IAAF World XC Championships
+NOTE - Teams are not guaranteed to attend the IAAF World XC Championships
= Athletes MUST compete at the Americas Championships March 6, 2010 in Trinidad & Tobago = Teams MUST finish in the top 2 at the Americas Championship in order to be selectable
= Teams must be deemed capable of finishing in the top ½ of teams at the World Championship
= Americas Champions ONLY are eligible for selection on an individual basis if a full team is not selectable based on their competitive readiness and ability to perform at the world level
So putting this all together. It seems like the team that goes to the Americas Championship may go to Worlds ONLY if the team is top 2 at the Championship. The only way you can go to Worlds without the team is if you personally win the Championship.
Now, I don't know the numbers, but I'd hazard the guess that it's been years and years since the last time four of the top six AND five of the top eight at nationals decided to run on an international team. As far as I know, this doesn't happen. Especially because it's not fully funded, it's unlikely that everyone will want to go. In some ways then, this appears to be an implicit cancellation of World XC teams. Is this AC's intention?
Moreover,the selection criteria appears to leave open the possibility that the Worlds team could be larger than the team for the Americas. In that case, could someone who finished outside of the top eight go to Worlds if the Americas team finishes in the top 2?
On a practical note, what does this mean for nationals? Will this discourage top runners from running nationals who have no intention of running the Americas Championship and Worlds?
The psychology at AC must be this:
1) We are not competitive on the World stage in XC
2) Our top runners don't go to Worlds
Therefore,
3) We don't send a team unless our top runners go.
End result. No team.
I still don't understand the harm of sending a team when people are generally paying for it themselves. What effect does it have on Athletics Canada? Would the competitors make them look bad? Or is there some actual reduction in funding that would result, because that appears to be AC's usual concern.
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 7, 2009 22:12:07 GMT -5
Perhaps it is time we as athletes take this into our hands?
Question for the lawyers: Is it at all possible for us to just separate from AC, call ourselves the Canadian Cross Country (and Mountain Running?) Association, find the funding ourselves and send a full team to worlds based upon our criteria? No training camps or NACAC competitions. Just take the top 7/8 guys and girls who want to go and get them to worlds?
Anyone with a legal background care to jump in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 7, 2009 22:16:42 GMT -5
If I'm reading this correctly, then worst case scenario at Canadian XC would be:
Senior race
1st, 5th, and 6th place decline their spots
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, etc. want to go to Americas/Worlds, good shape, etc.
Result: no one goes
Question - is there anyone who will NOT compete in Guelph this year because they would decline and don't want to prevent a team/individual from competing at Americas/Worlds?
I don't pretend to know enough about AC, funding, etc. and don't envy the decisions they may have to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Oct 7, 2009 22:17:04 GMT -5
I'm probably going to get made fun of for this but here goes.
Has anyone seen the movie "Stick It"? A fictional movie about American gymnasts who get fed up with their national sports body where the girls decide amongst themselves who is actually most deserving to go to worlds so they disqualify themselves leaving the person most deserving to go to worlds by default. Sort of a removing the politics from amatuer sports type deal.
Anyhow, wouldn't it be great if at Nationals all the athletes who figured they would not be competing at this regional race decide to stop at the finish line and wait for others who are actually willing to dish out their own money to go.
This is by no means, my suggestion that it actually happens. I'm sure what little sponsorship money those top guys are getting might not be pleased, but on the other hand that would draw some attention to some of the politicking that goes on.
So that was a pointless addition to this discussion, but that movie popped into my head when I read this and gave me a little chuckle, and I thought I would share.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 7, 2009 22:42:32 GMT -5
I thought of that, though I didn't get to see the movie:
unofficial finish line 10m out where we track unofficial finishing positions, after which anyone not planning to represent Canada can chose to stop and wait until 8 have crossed the official finish line, and then they can place 9th+.
|
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 7, 2009 23:13:13 GMT -5
Dammit here we go yet again: (I miss Cacaphonix (sp?), he was able to simplify everything for us, er, simple folks.)  |
|
mae
New Member
Posts: 8 
|
Post by mae on Oct 7, 2009 23:14:26 GMT -5
Another potential conflict is with world indoor champs which are march 12-14 (Doha) and could have provided athletes good opportunity to compete at both championships within a few weeks of each other. However, with the compuslory American XC Champs beginning of March it is basically impossible then to do indoors and XC within the next 3 weeks all over the world...but given the lack of published selection criteria out for indoors at this point it makes for a difficult decision which direction to focus on. So you may end up with athletes running national xc but deciding to focus on indoors later and then messing up the team selection process.
Note that a number individuals have competed well at both XC and indoors/commonwealths in the past and could be a good situtation for some 3km/5km/ xc type people, although tougher maybe for the guys running further for xc. (probably worked better with the short course option but still possible)....
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 7, 2009 23:28:17 GMT -5
Perhaps it is time we as athletes take this into our hands? Question for the lawyers: Is it at all possible for us to just separate from AC, call ourselves the Canadian Cross Country (and Mountain Running?) Association, find the funding ourselves and send a full team to worlds based upon our criteria? No training camps or NACAC competitions. Just take the top 7/8 guys and girls who want to go and get them to worlds? Anyone with a legal background care to jump in? Typical legal answer: it depends. I'm not a lawyer yet, so none of this is advice, just information! My experience with mountain running is that we can not send teams to the world events without AC's ok. They have always given the ok. Recently we have gotten closer with AC, making our (CTMRA) policies with respect to team conduct and national championships hosting in line with those for AC XC, as well as making sure all national team members are AC affiliated. As far as I know, IAAF recognizes the national federations, so unless someone is AC affiliated, they can not compete in the World Cross Country Championships (or area championships). They were probably pretty loose with Mountain Running in the past, but they have encouraged us to tighten up. The world body is very keen to have a strong Canadian program in mountain running. Anyway, I'm pretty sure IAAF would not allow a "rogue" Canadian squad. A couple more positive things: 1. What is this Americas? Is that a new IAAF area, replacing NACAC? I like it: On a broader scale, it can encourage cross teams from South America (Columbia, Brazil, Peru, could have good teams!), though in the end, it may just end up being the same teams as usual. 2. You guys are all looking at the bad side. I see this criteria as encouraging the top runners to go. A smaller pool means if there is a team, it is more likely to do well and get funding. Also, it means that team members are more likely to have gotten funding at Guelph. If you count back all the way to 16th place, well, that guy or girl is going to be self-funded for sure. I don't know the prize structure but that seems a likely scenario. Skuj, you can put away your schematic. It's not complicated at all. Top 8 are in the pool and six of those will go. That pretty much guarantees a team, as no matter how you slice 6 of 8, 4 will be in the top 6. The only problem I have is that, yes, if it is self-funded, and no one in the top ten wants to go, then sure, why should 11-16 not go? But then you get into the question of where do you draw the line? 17-22? 23-29? Especially with respect to the juniors, you are starting to have a not very positive experience on your hands. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 7, 2009 23:30:38 GMT -5
Another potential conflict is with world indoor champs which are march 12-14 (Doha) and could have provided athletes good opportunity to compete at both championships within a few weeks of each other. However, with the compuslory American XC Champs beginning of March it is basically impossible then to do indoors and XC within the next 3 weeks all over the world...but given the lack of published selection criteria out for indoors at this point it makes for a difficult decision which direction to focus on. So you may end up with athletes running national xc but deciding to focus on indoors later and then messing up the team selection process. Note that a number individuals have competed well at both XC and indoors/commonwealths in the past and could be a good situtation for some 3km/5km/ xc type people, although tougher maybe for the guys running further for xc. (probably worked better with the short course option but still possible).... I don't see this as an issue. Life is full of tough choices. Make a decision. Totally aside, and totally personal opinion, but why would any distance runner choose indoor track over cross country? |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 8, 2009 0:02:14 GMT -5
Seb Coe. That's a possible start to answering that question. Jeez, even I would choose indoor track, but nobody wants to know about me......
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 8, 2009 0:32:18 GMT -5
That's funny! I just logged on to suggest that runners who know they don't want to compete at the Americas meet should stop 10 metres before the line, but I see someone beat me to it.
As for finishing depth, it's never an issue for juniors. Other than rare cases of NCAA freshmen who get permission to run nationals but not worlds, pretty much everyone takes their spot. You don't get many shots at junior glory.
For seniors, it can be an issue. I know they've had to go down into the 20s earlier in the decade to field a women's team. Heck, I was 16th at nationals a few years ago and squeaked onto the team. But it's worth noting that I finished third of nine guys on the team at Worlds. Realistically, the difference between the guy in eighth and the guy in 12th is usually pretty small, and can easily be reversed in a subsequent race (especially four months later). To me, this is like when they used to ignore the IAAF standards of 13:21 and 27:49 in favour of tougher Canadian standards of 13:19 and 27:47. Is there really some argument that a guy who runs 27:47 is more globally competitive than a guy who ran 27:49? Please. They're statistically indistinguishable. It just ends up being a way of keeping the team smaller.
Incidentally, in answer to Lambert's question, I don't know whether poor performance at World Cross directly factors into the performances numbers that Sport Canada uses to determine funding. I doubt it, since it's not an Olympic sport. However, I believe the whole structure of AC's programming has to demonstrate their commitment to the principles of "Road to Excellence" (the summer version of Own The Podium) if they want to maximize their funding. So cross country may be sustaining collateral damage from that diktat. (I'm just speculating here, don't have any knowledge.)
|
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Oct 8, 2009 0:42:45 GMT -5
Four of the top six? Well, I think we can say with some certainty that there will not be a women's team this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbrecher on Oct 8, 2009 7:53:38 GMT -5
Unless and until Athletics Canada expressly articulates its rationale for adopting these more onerous selection criteria, one can only engage in idle speculation as to its motives, as we've been doing on this thread. Would Scott MacDonald, or anyone else with AC, care to let us know the considerations that went into the formulation of these new criteria?
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 8, 2009 8:20:17 GMT -5
Seb Coe. That's a possible start to answering that question. Jeez, even I would choose indoor track, but nobody wants to know about me...... Seb Coe, pfft, he's a nobody. How many OFSAA medals does he have? |
|
|
|
Post by jaydolmage on Oct 8, 2009 8:34:05 GMT -5
These selection criteria reveal so much about how A/C operates and how they view athletes. I can't even begin on this.
Instead, I have a suggestion:
There is a part of me that likes to think of the spectacle that would be created if 2/3 of the top runners had a separate finish line. But while this would embarrass A/C -- and I'm all for that -- this would also be an embarrassment to the sport.
I run National Cross every year. I would feel like a loser being part of a race and then having to explain this scenario to my friends and family who have watched me race.
What about, instead of thinking about how to derail and circumvent these criteria, we actually try and come up with a positive solution? Why doesn't Speed River create an option for all who register to also kick $10 into a pot that could be used to fund team members? It would be easy to set up this account, and if only half of the race's registrants throw in an extra $10, that would still be a lot of money. Maybe enough to cover those people who decline selection because of finances.
Of course, then there remains the very realistic scenario that we STILL wouldn't have men's or women's teams because runners are declining for other reasons.
And does anyone out there want to follow up on ahutch's point about Nationals order-of-finish and Worlds order-of-finish? Where have finishers 9-12 at Nationals finished at Worlds in the last ten years?
Jay
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 8, 2009 10:04:36 GMT -5
Am I the only one who doesn't think this is so bad? It seems that with a more open criteria (take the best athletes who want to go based on order of finish), we end up with complaints that the top guys don't want to race, etc etc.
How about this: what is your dream team for senior men and women? (someone already mentioned that juniors usually fill the spots) Isn't it top 6? So AC is suggesting that we select the best, and we are complaining?
I don't think it is fair to ask anyone running a race of any kind to step off at the finish line or whatever. I agree with Jay Dolmage that a creative fundraising solution would be a better use of grassroots energy. But that may not be the problem, as if the team is fast enough, it will pay for itself through AGSI and NACAC (Americas?) funding. And that goes back to the core of the criteria: fastest people go. Not fastest who want to go, or fastest who can afford to go (which is what more open criteria would allow), but the best runners go. Period.
|
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Oct 8, 2009 12:01:35 GMT -5
What worries me journeyman is a situation where many of the contenders for the national championship decide not the race since they do not have any intention of running Worlds in March, and they don't want to keep guys who want to go from doing so. I certainly don't want to see watered-down fields just so we can supposedly "select the best" on a certain day.
And we're not complaining about AC selecting the best- we're complaining that it's essentially all or nothing here. A couple guys in a marathon build up decide to run cross country, run good enough to crack the top 6, and say "hey that's enough for me" and everyone else is robbed the chance of competing on the world stage. And with cross country Worlds moving to a bi-annual schedule, we could be potentially setting ourselves up to going a large number of years without sending a squad.
If the top five finishers at the Canadian Mountain Running championships declined to run at Worlds, would you still be for sending a team?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 8, 2009 12:31:26 GMT -5
Skuj, you can put away your schematic. It's not complicated at all. Top 8 are in the pool and six of those will go. That pretty much guarantees a team, as no matter how you slice 6 of 8, 4 will be in the top 6. The only problem I have is that, yes, if it is self-funded, and no one in the top ten wants to go, then sure, why should 11-16 not go? But then you get into the question of where do you draw the line? 17-22? 23-29? Especially with respect to the juniors, you are starting to have a not very positive experience on your hands. Minimum 5 of the top-8. 4 of the top-6 supercedes 5 of the top-8, thus my (now modified) post from earlier: If I'm reading this correctly, then worst case scenario at Canadian XC would be: Senior race 1st, 5th, and 6th place decline their spots 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, etc. want to go to Americas/Worlds, good shape, etc. Result: no one goes |
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Oct 8, 2009 13:09:06 GMT -5
After reading through the criteria again, I think it's humourous that AC didn't include the little section of "OMGWTF, MANDATORY TRAINING CAMP PRIOR TO WORLDS, NO MATTER WHAAAAAT!" I thought they've fought for the last 5 years over that. This really looks like amateur hour where someone just sat down and put down impossible, vague barriers. The flow chart has almost all possibilities end in "There is no World's team." I love the Jan.-Feb. period that is marked as, "Individual select competitive and training opportunities." Is that english? If that is supposed to be "Individuals" then that's great advice, I'm sure none of the athletes would have thought to train in January and February. If that was to be "Individually" and it means that AC will select the athlete's opportunites, you'll have to go 50 deep to find 5 willing athletes, haha....
I especially enjoy the "Individual National Champions Only" part of the selection process to Americas. So, if Simon and Reid are in unbelievable shape, Simon nips Reid at the line at nationals, Reid wants to run Americas and Simon doesn't, Reid has to convince 3 of the 4 guys behind him to run at Americas or he's screwed. No matter that the two athletes are seperated by one tenth of a second and that either would win Americas, only the champion is worthy of PAYING HIS OWN WAY TO THE MEET.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 8, 2009 21:21:17 GMT -5
What worries me journeyman is a situation where many of the contenders for the national championship decide not the race since they do not have any intention of running Worlds in March, and they don't want to keep guys who want to go from doing so. I certainly don't want to see watered-down fields just so we can supposedly "select the best" on a certain day. And we're not complaining about AC selecting the best- we're complaining that it's essentially all or nothing here. A couple guys in a marathon build up decide to run cross country, run good enough to crack the top 6, and say "hey that's enough for me" and everyone else is robbed the chance of competing on the world stage. And with cross country Worlds moving to a bi-annual schedule, we could be potentially setting ourselves up to going a large number of years without sending a squad. If the top five finishers at the Canadian Mountain Running championships declined to run at Worlds, would you still be for sending a team? Yes I would because we are building a program in a much different way than the AC cross country program. There is no mountain running in schools, it doesn't necessarily complement any of the other disciplines (though there have been some good marathon cross-overs), and there is political pressure from the world body for us to send a full team no matter what. So our national championship and our national team are the ONLY places for Canadian mountain running to actually exist. It's a matter of building a sport, rather than building a team. It's quite different. If the top contenders in cross decline to run and this waters down the championship, that is not the same problem as not being able to send a team because they did run and decline after. We know the rules now so those people can make their decision accordingly. I don't think it is fair to say AC is to blame for preventing them from running, or for preventing others from running if certain runners make a choice they are entitled to make. I agree with Jay Brecher though: what is the rationale behind the all or nothing? |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 8, 2009 22:03:40 GMT -5
Yes I would because we are building a program in a much different way than the AC cross country program. There is no mountain running in schools, it doesn't necessarily complement any of the other disciplines (though there have been some good marathon cross-overs), and there is political pressure from the world body for us to send a full team no matter what. So our national championship and our national team are the ONLY places for Canadian mountain running to actually exist. It's a matter of building a sport, rather than building a team. It's quite different. You have no idea how jealous this made me feel. (And the "Gutbuster" series here is all the rage.) |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 8, 2009 22:18:43 GMT -5
You have no idea how jealous this made me feel. (And the "Gutbuster" series here is all the rage.) You mean you are jealous because you are trying to build up the wonderful sport of indoor track? Just kidding. Hey if you want to join in, let me know. We'd be happy to have you help! |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 8, 2009 22:49:44 GMT -5
"....pressure to send a full team no matter what...."
Contrast that with what we see here! Invert it, and you might get a better feel.
|
|
