|
|
Post by krs1 on Oct 24, 2009 14:31:36 GMT -5
Having a dream/vison is in fine. But if you want to make an effective impact on the sport, you need also be a realist about the situation as well. Are you not reading anything on this thread(and not just from me)? You can't be a separate entity from AC and expect to be able to compete in an IAAF event.Good luck with that worlds thing. "You may say I'm a dreamer......." This thread is about a lot of things. But the common thread is that there MUST be a better way. AC might bless (or even be relieved!) if another "group" handles all this, without holding hands with them.....but they'll have to rubber stamp, I guess. "Affiliated with....", but in reality, no part of. I don't know.....but it ain't gonna change with the present AC "thinking"...... |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 24, 2009 14:32:23 GMT -5
CANRUN.
Lol.....a lot better than "can't"........
It still bugs me that we call our sport "Athletics"........
|
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 24, 2009 14:37:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I hear you Kevin. But I've been so frustrated for so long with what I see in Canadian Running, surely it is time to think (or dream) "outside the box". Affiliation is one thing, control is another. Surely there is a way to play our own game within AC's Ten Commandments or whatever. "Though Shalt Not Choose Non-Canadian Citizens For The Team" etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 24, 2009 14:43:19 GMT -5
I think this is all great discussion, and I don't mean to be negative, but the biggest hurdle on this will be finding the cash. I suspect we did not devote enough time and resources to it to be as successful as we might have been, but, still, it's hard. In my experience, joggers and recreational runners are almost bitter towards anyone with any ambition or speed. But clearly that's not the case for everyone. I think you are wrong here Journeyman. There are bitter people in all aspects of society. But you raise an important point that perhaps is getting lost on people. I think our fundraising efforts should be in putting on 'events' (doesn't have to be a race) for the average runner rather than just asking for donations. Now when you go to ask them to sponsor an event, it's not just about elite athletes. It's about putting on an 'event' for the masses and donating the profits to the F.O.C.D.R.S. What we really need is a full-time, professional fundraiser. Get someone from outside the sport, and educate them about the product. Pay that person a percentage of what they can get. These people already exist, there are companies that do this for a living. But if SI is correct (I'm not saying he isn't right this second), then it's not the lack of fundraising that is the problem. It's the fact that AC does not feel XC to be worth of spending the funds on. The only way to do this is to make our teams perform better at world XC. One way to do this is get our best guys and girls to world XC champs. And the way to do this is to make funds available to our top guys so they know that going to worlds isn't going to cost them money. At least I hope Dylan, Reid, Simon, Kevin, etc...would be more interested in going to world XC champs if they knew someone would pay for it. Am I wrong here? Here is a wild idea (unrelated to my mountain running experience): offer wagering on the races. They do it in Europe. We do it all the time, but without money. Sit and watch the sprints and one person says, I got yellow, another says I got blue. Make it interesting, apply it to distance running, and keep some of the proceeds. What are the odds on Coldneck vs Gills at nationals? Great idea (and I really mean that) but according to Canadian gambling laws, 100% of the money bet on things like running, have to be paid out to the winners. The organizer can't actually make money doing it. I looked into this for my 1 mile road race. But there might be a loop hole in the law somewhere but according to the people I talked to, there isn't. Dog tracks make money off the booze and food sales, nothing is kept from the actual betting. Horse racing is different for some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 24, 2009 14:57:24 GMT -5
I think you are wrong here Journeyman. There are bitter people in all aspects of society. But you raise an important point that perhaps is getting lost on people. I think our fundraising efforts should be in putting on 'events' (doesn't have to be a race) for the average runner rather than just asking for donations. Now when you go to ask them to sponsor an event, it's not just about elite athletes. It's about putting on an 'event' for the masses and donating the profits to the F.O.C.D.R.S. I agree, that will likely make it easier for more people to contribute. FOCDRS? What is that now? Too many acronyms already! I think that AC would be happy to send a fully funded team of our best runners to World XC. I think that is where the positive vibes need to start. Has anyone asked AC (or, really, a person from AC, since AC is made up of people) what they would do if someone backed a truck of XC dedicated money up to their door? I think the answer would be yes. [/quote]Great idea (and I really mean that) but according to Canadian gambling laws, 100% of the money bet on things like running, have to be paid out to the winners. The organizer can't actually make money doing it. [/quote] I figured there would be a legal issue of some kind. Can we set up a shop on an island somewhere? A server on St Pierre & Miquelon? Ok, that's getting kind of sketchy... |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 24, 2009 15:24:23 GMT -5
I think you are wrong here Journeyman. There are bitter people in all aspects of society. But you raise an important point that perhaps is getting lost on people. I think our fundraising efforts should be in putting on 'events' (doesn't have to be a race) for the average runner rather than just asking for donations. Now when you go to ask them to sponsor an event, it's not just about elite athletes. It's about putting on an 'event' for the masses and donating the profits to the F.O.C.D.R.S. I agree, that will likely make it easier for more people to contribute. FOCDRS? What is that now? Too many acronyms already! I think that AC would be happy to send a fully funded team of our best runners to World XC. I think that is where the positive vibes need to start. Has anyone asked AC (or, really, a person from AC, since AC is made up of people) what they would do if someone backed a truck of XC dedicated money up to their door? I think the answer would be yes. Great idea (and I really mean that) but according to Canadian gambling laws, 100% of the money bet on things like running, have to be paid out to the winners. The organizer can't actually make money doing it. [/quote] I figured there would be a legal issue of some kind. Can we set up a shop on an island somewhere? A server on St Pierre & Miquelon? Ok, that's getting kind of sketchy...[/quote] Friends of Canadian Of Distance Running Society  I think Gambling laws vary from province to province but we're pretty lax here in Alberta so I'm doubtful if anywhere else would allow it. We could probably set something up offshore, let me look into that one and I'll get back to you offline...  |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 24, 2009 15:28:15 GMT -5
I think that AC would be happy to send a fully funded team of our best runners to World XC. I think that is where the positive vibes need to start. Has anyone asked AC (or, really, a person from AC, since AC is made up of people) what they would do if someone backed a truck of XC dedicated money up to their door? I think the answer would be yes. You're right and I realize that you, PQ and SI have been saying something along these lines for a while. I just had to sleep on it, we're all pretty passionate about the sport and sometimes forget that there is more than one side to an argument. I'm willing to try the hand holding with AC first. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 24, 2009 19:08:17 GMT -5
Great to see so much passion. I really like "Friends of..." in terms of the message it sends. It would be important to hold hands, maybe snuggle a bit, with AC to ensure a positive relationship built on a common goal of getting Canadian athletes to compete (well) internationally. This is worth reading up on, as is Jane Roos; she's a decent speaker and someone who cared enough to make a difference for other athletes. www.canadianathletesnow.ca/I would hope that this National distance running organization would both support and facilitate the development of grass-roots/local organizations. Matt offered great advice earlier re: sponsorship, and that is the kind of info that could be passed down to local levels. We've recently set up the 'London and Area Running Association' to start building funds for LRDC athletes to get after national/international level competitions. Communication/coordination between local groups such as LARA with the "Friends of Canadian Distance Running" would certainly facilitate the 'promote the sport' objective I assume this national organization would have, as well as creating the avenue for a % of locally raised $ to be contributed to the National fund. Another local coach suggested getting events to contribute a pittance of $.50 per entry fee towards this national fund. If we get enough events on board with this relatively small amount - offering some value in return re: promotion of event, etc. - that can quickly add up to significant numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 24, 2009 19:29:47 GMT -5
I will catch up on the thread soon.....
Did you say "CANRUN", skuj? Did you pick that out of my mind?
I thought of that a bit earlier, and I liked it, so I have someone checking out domain issues.
Anyways, I am glad that Kevin and Martin and John are involved in the discussion. It will help to give wings to the vision....
I think we need very small steps to start, before we get down on all the details....
a) decide on what/who we are.....in the most generic terms...
b) name ourselves...
c) get some"charter members" at a very token/symbolic amount (such as $1) who believe in what we are trying to do, and are willing to stand up as Charter Members. I can tell you that several current and past elite athletes are ready and willing to do that, if we get a and b done properly. Maybe all our initial Charter Members should be current or former International Distance Runners ----that would have a considerable marketing "sting"....
As for AC, positions expressed by Kevin serve our purpose well.....The "It's our Show, and you have to play the Game our Way" attitude (not by Kevin, but only representing the realities of the situation) even if we don't give a f**k about what you think, it's time to change that, on behalf of our current and future distance runners...
Prediction ---- if AC wants to play the game that way, this could quickly become a no-win situation for them..."There are many ways to skin the cat."
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Oct 24, 2009 20:01:48 GMT -5
As for AC, positions expressed by Kevin serve our purpose well.....The "It's our Show, and you have to play the Game our Way" attitude (not by Kevin, but only representing the realities of the situation) even if we don't give a f**k about what you think, it's time to change that, on behalf of our current and future distance runners... Prediction ---- if AC wants to play the game that way, this could quickly become a no-win situation for them..."There are many ways to skin the cat." I did not say that was how AC would act. But, the last time a "Friends" group tried to "talk" with AC, the tone from the friends was one of demands, instead of trying to work with AC to fix the problems. From the Friends of Athletics letter: "...we make the following demands: 1. That AC do whatever it takes to reinstate full-funding for junior national teams as soon as possible. The self-funding option has removed the pressure on AC to provide leadership in this area. The long term use of self-funding also systematically limits the pool of potential national team athletes at its source, and, in so doing, harms long term athlete development in this country. 2. That AC publish a clear plan, including a timeline, for how it proposes to end the practice of "self-funding" on all national teams. Or else that it consider canceling teams that can't be fully funded and stop using self-funding to hide the public embarrassment that Canada, a G-8 nation, cannot afford to send athletes to accredited international competitions, in spite of the fact that many developing nations manage to do so. And, in the meantime, that AC: 1. End mandatory training camps, and travel restrictions in general, for “self-funded” athletes. We feel strongly that AC should make demands of athletes only in accord with level of responsibility it is willing or able to assume. Responsibility between athlete and federation must be balanced. 2. Make junior team funding the priority. By far the biggest development “bang for the buck” that AC, in its now very limited capacity, can achieve is through the full funding of our most talented junior athletes, even if this involves the short term transfer of resources from other activities. The possibility of national team participation is very attractive to young athletes, but many are inevitably put-off by the potentially high costs involved; full funding for junior athletes is therefore probably the single best way to ensure the future of elite track and field in our country." I would guess the "demands" did not go over so well at AC hence the lukewarm/cold response to said demands. So, IMO, it would be best to NOT bite the hand that can rubber stamp your policies and instead try build a relationship on mutual respect and ideals of what and how WXC fits into the development and high performance streams of Athletics in Canada. Also, I found it interesting in re-reading the letter the statement about cancelling WXC teams if they were not fully funded. Would that also be the policy of this Canadian XC think-tank if you can't come up with the $$ to fully fund a team? |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 24, 2009 20:07:10 GMT -5
Fair points, Kevin ! Do you have a buck in your pocket?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 24, 2009 20:08:41 GMT -5
It almost seems as though we need a separate sub-thread, for each of the various issues connected to this discussion.....Are you okay with all this, Chris?
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Oct 24, 2009 20:12:07 GMT -5
As for AC, positions expressed by Kevin serve our purpose well.....The "It's our Show, and you have to play the Game our Way" attitude (not by Kevin, but only representing the realities of the situation) even if we don't give a f**k about what you think, it's time to change that, on behalf of our current and future distance runners... Prediction ---- if AC wants to play the game that way, this could quickly become a no-win situation for them..."There are many ways to skin the cat." This goes the same way for your xc group...maybe more so. Remember, AC is in the position of power here whether you like it or not. They are the IAAF recoginized governing body for XC in Canada. If you want to be effective in getting your mandate through you better be prepared to play nice otherwise you won't even get in the door to start the conversation with those that will ultimately decide the fate of your group, at least with respect to the decision making powers you would ideally like to have. AC is the one that possesses those decision making powers and I am afraid a fight would be a no-win situation for your XC group, and ultimately all the good things you are all professing to get accomplished. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Oct 24, 2009 20:14:40 GMT -5
Fair points, Kevin ! Do you have a buck in your pocket? I'll give you $1USD if that's ok ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 24, 2009 20:35:00 GMT -5
Okay....the US buck will have to do....although loonies are preferred As for the "play nice to AC", I get that, and most of us do. That would be approach # 1 - to work together in support of common interests, right? And I don't think anyone is interested in attempting a "palace revolt" in terms of trying to take over the AC authority/power role in final decision making, as that is clearly a no-win approach, for all involved. However, there are a lot of ways that a group of passionate and dedicated people can contribute to and influence decision-making, other than an "off with their heads" scenario. And if there are several tens or hundreds of thousands of people who understand and care and are willing to support someone that can run a Mile (for instance) or a 10 K, and only a few dozen that care about the Women's Hammer Throw (as another for instance), then we have a problem, perhaps an impasse... But reasonable people, in pursuit of common goals, can work it out, where the will to co-operate is there. My best guess is that some of the key decision makers in AC will, sooner or later, have to decide whether it's "my way or the highway", or some other alternative... All the best, Kev.! |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 24, 2009 20:50:08 GMT -5
Some very interesting possibilities, guys. Kevin's post raises some of the points I've been thinking about over the last few days. If we're thinking pragmatically (i.e. understanding that AC holds the trump cards in terms of IAAF participation), then I think a very important first step is burying (or at least suppressing) whatever grudges people have with respect to AC. Getting AC on board is a prerequisite for anything being discussed here.
To that end, I think a good starting point would be to simply ask AC: "How much money would we (some independent group) need to provide in order for you to promise to send a fully-funded team to the regional XC champs every year?"
Asking that way makes it hard to turn down, unless it really is that money has nothing to do with it and it's simply about being embarrassed to see Canadians near the back of the pack. That would be outrageous, but good to know -- there's no point in raising barrels of money if they won't send a team even for a million dollars. (What we do in that case is a question for another time.)
The other thing is that, the most specific a "grand plan" we present, the easier it is for them to find a reason to reject it. If we stipulate selection policies, the number of support staff permitted, the location and date of trials, the terms of sponsorship agreements... it's easy to say, "Well, that's a nice offer, but it doesn't fit with our organizational objectives" or whatever. But if you just ask how much they'd need to send a team, it's a way of opening a dialogue.
Obviously, that doesn't mean their number is set in stone -- that's just a starting point. But it becomes the basis for subsequent discussions, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum nailed to their door.
There is one group that has already gone through this process: Alan Brookes and John Halvorsen with the World Cup marathon team. I don't have any inside information, but my understanding is that the offer of funding a team was on the table for several years before it was taken up this year. And I don't think we yet know whether this program will be renewed (I think the money is there, but AC has yet to decide whether it's appropriate to continue with it). So they'd probably be able to shed some light on what factors are most important to AC in situations like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 24, 2009 21:14:55 GMT -5
Lots to think about, ahutch...
And maybe I see this a bit differently than many, but I think we try to work with AC whenever possible, and with other partners whenever possible, but have a distinct and separate mission, which is valid no matter which other organizations buy in or not...
I think we need to agree on the parameters of that mission, but it seems that a bunch of people care about creating a better environment for Canadian distance running, and with the hope that more top Canadian distance runners can emerge and be supported.
In my mind at least, the ability and willingness to send a National Team to the Americas or the Worlds is a part of the picture, but not the whole picture, by any means.
These are areas we probably need some agreement on, before we go much further....
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 24, 2009 22:16:53 GMT -5
I am going to check out of this thread for a day or so...Keep the positive stuff going, guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 24, 2009 22:19:35 GMT -5
As the author of the words quoted in Kevin's post, let me say the following in response:
-When I formulated those demands, and when more than 50 lovers of Canadian athletics (running, whatever) agreed to sign below them, I imagined that more of them would be interested in backing them up with further action. You speak of realism: realism also means recognizing that certain institiutions/organizations have a bias, an ingrained way of seeing the world, that makes them basically impossible to reform from within. It is not always "realistic" to do what those with access to resources and authority want. Trying to do what they want, and expecting things to get better, if often the most UN-realistic course of action available.
-I firmly believe that the only way institutions like AC can change is if they are challenged openly by the people they are charged with administering.
-I expected those at AC who read those words would understand and register the depth of feeling behind them, behave like adults, and not take them as a persona affront. They run a government funded organization. They should be prepared to hear and respond to strong criticism (which is what these "demands" really amounted to) without prejudice.
-Their response included no invitation to "work with them constructively", nor any suggestions about how to do so, apart from basically taking their word for everything, and going along with their definition of the situation. For a government agency, AC is one of the most top-down and unresponsive outfits I've ever come across. You shouldn't have to actually work for, or volunteer with, an organization to have some idea of how it works and how its money is spent; yet, there are those of us who have been in this sport for decades, and have a keen interest in knowing what goes on there, who haven't got a clue what really goes on, and how, dollar-for-dollar, it spends it's money. (How, for instance, do we actually KNOW it is not administratively top-heavy and couldn't do much more with less?) This is a REALLY important set of questions when said organization claims it cannot do something as seemingly fundamental as fund qualified Canadian representatives to international competition-- something which it did routinely in the past.
-I still think AC should have the guts to openly cancel Canada's WXC participation if it won't agree to fund it. This would open the possibility of some outside organization offering to take it off their hands. That AC can both de-fund this program AND seek to retain control over it is outrageous.
|
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 24, 2009 23:25:22 GMT -5
As for AC, positions expressed by Kevin serve our purpose well.....The "It's our Show, and you have to play the Game our Way" attitude (not by Kevin, but only representing the realities of the situation) even if we don't give a f**k about what you think, it's time to change that, on behalf of our current and future distance runners... Prediction ---- if AC wants to play the game that way, this could quickly become a no-win situation for them..."There are many ways to skin the cat." I did not say that was how AC would act. But, the last time a "Friends" group tried to "talk" with AC, the tone from the friends was one of demands, instead of trying to work with AC to fix the problems. From the Friends of Athletics letter: "...we make the following demands: 1. That AC do whatever it takes to reinstate full-funding for junior national teams as soon as possible. The self-funding option has removed the pressure on AC to provide leadership in this area. The long term use of self-funding also systematically limits the pool of potential national team athletes at its source, and, in so doing, harms long term athlete development in this country. 2. That AC publish a clear plan, including a timeline, for how it proposes to end the practice of "self-funding" on all national teams. Or else that it consider canceling teams that can't be fully funded and stop using self-funding to hide the public embarrassment that Canada, a G-8 nation, cannot afford to send athletes to accredited international competitions, in spite of the fact that many developing nations manage to do so. And, in the meantime, that AC: 1. End mandatory training camps, and travel restrictions in general, for “self-funded” athletes. We feel strongly that AC should make demands of athletes only in accord with level of responsibility it is willing or able to assume. Responsibility between athlete and federation must be balanced. 2. Make junior team funding the priority. By far the biggest development “bang for the buck” that AC, in its now very limited capacity, can achieve is through the full funding of our most talented junior athletes, even if this involves the short term transfer of resources from other activities. The possibility of national team participation is very attractive to young athletes, but many are inevitably put-off by the potentially high costs involved; full funding for junior athletes is therefore probably the single best way to ensure the future of elite track and field in our country." I would guess the "demands" did not go over so well at AC hence the lukewarm/cold response to said demands. So, IMO, it would be best to NOT bite the hand that can rubber stamp your policies and instead try build a relationship on mutual respect and ideals of what and how WXC fits into the development and high performance streams of Athletics in Canada. Also, I found it interesting in re-reading the letter the statement about cancelling WXC teams if they were not fully funded. Would that also be the policy of this Canadian XC think-tank if you can't come up with the $$ to fully fund a team? Er.....I think Oldster will have a lot to say about this? And to answer that last question....imho, YES......if the best Canadians must pay their way to the Worlds, then the group that governs them should decide to not send them instead. I would hope that our new pie-in-the-sky group has a mission statement that includes "we SHALL send our best to the world stage"..... As for these "demands", well, that says a lot about how desperate things were, and we are even worse now? Kevin......are you happy with the present state of Canadian Distance Running? Are things going in the right direction? (You know I love you, Man.) |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 24, 2009 23:29:01 GMT -5
-I still think AC should have the guts to openly cancel Canada's WXC participation if it won't agree to fund it. This would open the possibility of some outside organization offering to take it off their hands. That AC can both de-fund this program AND seek to retain control over it is outrageous. 10/10. (SI, say that thing again........) |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 24, 2009 23:37:23 GMT -5
You know, I hate to say this, but...... We've been in this shyte situation for so long, that some of us actually think that it is very wrong to really kick AC in the ass. We must bow to them and kiss their hand, or else. I mean, seriously guys....WTF?  ?? Defunding, raising standards at one end while doing next to zero at the other end, singing La Dolce Vita as the ship sinks...... They have to answer to someone other than the "funding partners". The Government gets voted in or out depending on what a bunch of tossers they may or may not be. But oh no....AC is untouchable and unchangeable. We must not upset the applecart. HOGWASH. Hey guys.....been to any really exciting track meets in Canada lately? I mean really well attended meets with all ages and abilities? |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 25, 2009 2:14:35 GMT -5
"When I formulated those demands, and when more than 50 lovers of Canadian athletics (running, whatever) agreed to sign below them, I imagined that more of them would be interested in backing them up with further action."
Okay, now it's 2009. Do you imagine things will be different if you try the same approach again?
"I expected those at AC who read those words would understand and register the depth of feeling behind them, behave like adults, and not take them as a persona affront."
Same question: will you get a different result from trying the same thing?
We can debate what's right and wrong, the inherent self-preservation bias in bureaucracies, the individualistic nature of distance runners (and hopefully we'll have a chance to, over a beer, when I'm back in Canada this winter!). As I think you know, I'm fully in agreement with your position on how the XC program should be run. And I'm largely in agreement with your assessment of the obstacles that currently prevent that from happening. But I'm less convinced about the route from A to B.
You've said before that you hoped AC would just cancel our WXC program entirely, because the stupidity of that move would help convince people of the need for radical action. Maybe, though, the top runners would do nothing because they still want to be making AC teams for Olympics, WCs, ekidens, Commonwealths, Pan Ams, Francophones and so on. They've been getting along fine without WXC lately. So that leaves, at the senior men's level, a dozen or two guys in the 29:30 to 32:00 range who will be hopping mad. Far fewer at the senior women's level. As I've expressed earlier in the thread, I think these people are a crucial part of the picture in developing greater depth in Canadian running. But I don't necessarily see in them the seeds of radical action -- or at least, of radical action with any leverage to speak of.
So from my perspective, I'm willing to start with half-measures, including things like self-funding -- because I think that the stable existence of a team is important in its own right.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 25, 2009 2:20:11 GMT -5
In my mind at least, the ability and willingness to send a National Team to the Americas or the Worlds is a part of the picture, but not the whole picture, by any means. These are areas we probably need some agreement on, before we go much further.... I agree -- with the last sentence! Supporting distance running in Canada is a noble and worthwhile endeavour; but it's a completely different kettle of fish than the much narrower goal of trying to fund a national XC team. My advice above only applies to the latter case. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 25, 2009 2:22:00 GMT -5
We've been in this shyte situation for so long, that some of us actually think that it is very wrong to really kick AC in the ass. It's not about whether it's "wrong," it's about whether it accomplishes anything other than blowing off steam. |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 25, 2009 10:06:22 GMT -5
So from my perspective, I'm willing to start with half-measures, including things like self-funding -- because I think that the stable existence of a team is important in its own right. Hmmmm.....that's ironic, because self funding is precisely a reason for instability. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 25, 2009 10:38:12 GMT -5
It sounds like most people agree that sending teams to international XC meets is important.
Where I think we have the most disagreement is how we do that.
But lets go with the working with AC to send teams to the Americas in 2011 as it seems like the majority still want to do. So far there aren't many supporters of a coup...
If we do this and go ahead with it, my own personal view is that we aim to raise a bunch ($100K?) of cash and then make it available to the athletes who want to go to the Americas in 2011. We let the athletes know before nationals that there will be full funding available to them if they make the team and want to go. Once AC lets the athlete know how much it will cost, the group would write the athlete a cheque for X amount.
Does anyone know roughly how much the cost to athletes is going to be to go to the America's this year? Remembering that there is some funding available from the Guelph group putting on nationals? Or even how much it cost last year to go to NACAC's?
Hopefully this would encourage our top guys and girls to go the Americas as it is fully funded and they can now go, kick some butt and set the stage for making it to worlds in 2012. Any criteria that AC puts in place for sending teams should no longer be an issue as there would be no reason to not to go the Americas with funding now not an obstacle for our top distance runners.
The one obstacle I see now (there could be more that I am missing?) is if our top senior finishers at our national cross country champs will actually go to the Americas if there is full funding available to them? If not, then we have a bigger problem then just funding and would need to find a way around this obstacle but one hurdle at a time I guess...
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 25, 2009 13:33:52 GMT -5
The one obstacle I see now (there could be more that I am missing?) is if our top senior finishers at our national cross country champs will actually go to the Americas if there is full funding available to them? If not, then we have a bigger problem then just funding and would need to find a way around this obstacle but one hurdle at a time I guess... If we were able to raise the funds for the 2009/2010 team, then perhaps we could 'suggest' a trial race in 2011 to AC for the team selection rather than selecting a team in December 2010. This would hopefully make the top 4 of X plus next runners from the top 8 an insignificant criteria since everyone attending a trials race in Feb would pretty much be committed to going to worlds. I believe this was Journeyman and Ron's idea which is a great idea. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 25, 2009 14:04:08 GMT -5
The one obstacle I see now (there could be more that I am missing?) is if our top senior finishers at our national cross country champs will actually go to the Americas if there is full funding available to them? If not, then we have a bigger problem then just funding and would need to find a way around this obstacle but one hurdle at a time I guess... If we were able to raise the funds for the 2009/2010 team, then perhaps we could 'suggest' a trial race in 2011 to AC for the team selection rather than selecting a team in December 2010. This would hopefully make the top 4 of X plus next runners from the top 8 an insignificant criteria since everyone attending a trials race in Feb would pretty much be committed to going to worlds. I believe this was Journeyman and Ron's idea which is a great idea. Yeah I know, but I'm not sure AC will be up for suggestions from us about dates etc for 2010/2011. As SI put it, until we have the money together and are ready to dish it out to the athletes, I don't think we are in a position to 'demand' anything if we are going the working together route. |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 25, 2009 15:57:46 GMT -5
We "demand" that they let us play in a sandbox that is very well defined, a sandbox that pleases them / is blessed by them, but is a very seperate sandbox from the one that they play in. Becaue really, what is the role of AC these days? IMHO it is very very limited when one looks at "grassroots" and "pyramid base" and all. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
Anyway, recently I decided that I spend way too much time on the internet, hahaha....and I'm deleting my account (on purpose this time!) after this post. (Really sorry SI, I know you'll miss me.)
Good luck with this, and email me if a consensus is made, and you want my input/help somehow.
Cheers
Darren Skuja
eeemail@telus.net
|
|
??