2010 CROSS COUNTRY NATIONAL TEAM PROGRAM

[pq]

Holy crap, you go away for a few days.... Lots of good debate and discussion since I last checked in. I can't say I've read everything from the past 5-6 days carefully (too much too absorb in one sitting), but I can say this accurately frames my own views on the situation:

Oct 26, 2009 22:28:33 GMT -5 saskatchewan said:

Just for the record, i personally am not advocating a breakaway from AC or anything of the kind. What i am saying is:

1. AC is neither the ultimate problem nor the ultimate solution.
2. AC is the governing body in Canada and as such we need to work with them.
3. Advocating a committee or group such as has been voiced here is not advocating breaking away from AC.
4. Competitive distance running in Canada has failed to market its self nearly as successfully as other sports (snowboarding, mountain biking, etc). Good news here is this means that there is a huge potential upside if we can get it right.
5. Local sponsorship at the grass-roots level should be aggressively pursued and can be easier to obtain then national sponsorship.
6. Local options usually work better then national options (here is my bias as a stereotypical westerner and finance guy - i.e. "less government is better government").
7. There has been fantastic dialogue here which will hopefully lead to envigorated competitive distance running options across Canada.
8. Some of the best thinking comes when people disagree passionately on a subject.

I like that the dialogue has shifted away from the confrontational "demands"-type focus. Matt's initial "plan" (several pages back) had a negative vibe that I wouldn't be able to support. What seems to be evolving is something I'd personally be much more comfortable supporting.

[oldster]

I think AC's sharpest critics (of which I am one, it's no secret) acknowledged a few pages ago that no group that actually wants to remain relevant can actually hope to usurp ACs control over any program covered by its administrative mandate. What some of us were envisioning at one point is that it might be convinced to concede some of this control over the X-C program, since it doesn't appear all that interested in it, apart from setting stricter standards and exhorting Canadian athletes to "be faster" (when, as a supposedly expert body in the sport, it should know that quality is a function of over all depth, not the isolated efforts of a handful of individuals who are probably already training really hard; but that's another story). Since it probably never will cede this kind of control, some of us began envisioning a way to help fund this team FOR AC, on the model of the WC marathon project. To liken any of this to "separatism" is neither accurate nor particularly helpful in terms of trying to understand the nature of this situation. As Kevin (and presumably AC) defines it, any form of association or action that does not involve "members" acting strictly as "members", and operating through established channels (i.e. branch associations or direct, individual contacts with AC staff or representatives) is a kind of "separatism"; but, that just an inevitable symptom of an "insiders" view of the situation. In reality, there is already a kind of "separation", in the form of a disconnect, between the vast number of people working locally in this sport and AC itself, or else discussions like this would not be so easy to get started. (I think, BTW, that they have chosen to believe that any discontent is confined to a minority of cranks and trouble-makers like me, simply because the majority in the sport remain basically silent and generally cooperative; but ,silence and cooperation often just mean people feel they have no other option, not that they're perfectly happy with things. The ease with which people could be convinced to sign a letter like the one Kevin quoted, which was pretty strongly worded, is an indication of the breadth and depth of latent dissatisfaction with the admin and leadership in this sport, I think.) The reality is that there already exists a kind of "separation" between AC and the grassroots of the sport, and what many of us envision is a kind of healing of this separation, but not by means not of people simply "learning to love AC"; rather, by AC becoming more open, transparent and accountable to the people who, let's face, do the work to supply this sport with fresh talent.

I really do appreciate Kevin's contribution to discussions like this, but one thing I find unfortunate about his tone at times-- and I think this is something that's representative of AC's attitude in general toward any kind of criticism "from below", as it were-- is a sense that we don't know what we're talking about; that we don't have the facts (or aren't interested in hearing them); that we have no constructive solutions; that we just like to complain for the sake of complaining; that we should try working within the organization if we don't like what it's doing (even though we might already be spending tons of time helping the sport at the grass roots level); and that, in general, we have no right to make open demands of it. This tone is indicative of a kind of technocratic arrogance and disdain for democracy in the most basic sense that is a kind of occupational hazard in all government organizations everywhere. All insiders within government organizations, or at least their leaders, are inclined to think that there is never any alternative to the way things are currently run; that they have looked at all of the conceivable alternatives and none are viable, making any criticism from the outside simply an annoying waste of time. What this tone reveals, however, is often simply a narrowing of basic vision, and a basic instinct for institutional survival. And this tone will tend to piss people off when they encounter it from anyone in power, and living off the tax payer dollar to boot. My response to this tone would be to say: If we don't know the facts, then you should be doing more to educate us, and should not be afraid of showing us exactly what goes on within the organization. And, if the proper means don't exist to convey this information (i.e. if a message board isn't appropriate), then create the means.

[krs1]

As PQ stated back on page 6: But I can't recall anyone offering a specific idea of how to DO something about the issue before.

You don't like that AC doesn't appreciate you criticism. But don't pretend like you presented AC with "constructive solutions." The open letter to AC was a list of complaints and a list of demands.

And my "insider view" didn't imagine the following posts early in the thread:

"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?"

"I think we should make a very serious effort to create a separate organization in Canada, that will assume responsibility for developing and funding these events."

"I think AC should scrap the program since they no longer want to fund it and just let us, the athletes, create something like you have going for Mountain Running."

"Show me the Legalise (sp?) that gave AC the right to be in charge of XC in Canada. We could get a good lawyer and challenge that?"

"Perhaps we need for AC to not send a team. Perhaps they will then drop the program and we can create an organization to look after the sport?"

"What we do need is the following:

"Freedom to be allowed to operate without any hinderance from AC. All we need AC to do is sign off on the entries."

And that "separatist" attitude didn't start to change until much later in the thread once a few cooler heads pointed out the fact that you can't just create a separate entity without some sort of AC blessing.

It's really easy to sit on the message boards and cry that the taxpayer paid administrators simply have a "basic instinct for institutional survival." Those are some pretty harsh words directed at many of the leaders in AC who, prior to being paid by the taxpayer, have done the same hundreds and thousands of hours of free volunteer work that coaches such as yourself do. On top of the paid staff such as Martin, Alex, and Scott, there are countless others who volunteer in the committee structure or on the board of directors who, in addition, continue to volunteer in our sport outside of the board/committee rooms. So you'll have to excuse the "tone" of those who also have a passion and love for the sport take to your complaints, when you start accusing them of having narrow visions, technocratic arrogance, and disdain for democracy.

Oct 27, 2009 11:07:53 GMT -5 oldster said:

I think AC's sharpest critics (of which I am one, it's no secret) acknowledged a few pages ago that no group that actually wants to remain relevant can actually hope to usurp ACs control over any program covered by its administrative mandate. What some of us were envisioning at one point is that it might be convinced to concede some of this control over the X-C program, since it doesn't appear all that interested in it, apart from setting stricter standards and exhorting Canadian athletes to "be faster" (when, as a supposedly expert body in the sport, it should know that quality is a function of over all depth, not the isolated efforts of a handful of individuals who are probably already training really hard; but that's another story). Since it probably never will cede this kind of control, some of us began envisioning a way to help fund this team FOR AC, on the model of the WC marathon project. To liken any of this to "separatism" is neither accurate nor particularly helpful in terms of trying to understand the nature of this situation. As Kevin (and presumably AC) defines it, any form of association or action that does not involve "members" acting strictly as "members", and operating through established channels (i.e. branch associations or direct, individual contacts with AC staff or representatives) is a kind of "separatism"; but, that just an inevitable symptom of an "insiders" view of the situation. In reality, there is already a kind of "separation", in the form of a disconnect, between the vast number of people working locally in this sport and AC itself, or else discussions like this would not be so easy to get started. (I think, BTW, that they have chosen to believe that any discontent is confined to a minority of cranks and trouble-makers like me, simply because the majority in the sport remain basically silent and generally cooperative; but ,silence and cooperation often just mean people feel they have no other option, not that they're perfectly happy with things. The ease with which people could be convinced to sign a letter like the one Kevin quoted, which was pretty strongly worded, is an indication of the breadth and depth of latent dissatisfaction with the admin and leadership in this sport, I think.) The reality is that there already exists a kind of "separation" between AC and the grassroots of the sport, and what many of us envision is a kind of healing of this separation, but not by means not of people simply "learning to love AC"; rather, by AC becoming more open, transparent and accountable to the people who, let's face, do the work to supply this sport with fresh talent.

I really do appreciate Kevin's contribution to discussions like this, but one thing I find unfortunate about his tone at times-- and I think this is something that's representative of AC's attitude in general toward any kind of criticism "from below", as it were-- is a sense that we don't know what we're talking about; that we don't have the facts (or aren't interested in hearing them); that we have no constructive solutions; that we just like to complain for the sake of complaining; that we should try working within the organization if we don't like what it's doing (even though we might already be spending tons of time helping the sport at the grass roots level); and that, in general, we have no right to make open demands of it. This tone is indicative of a kind of technocratic arrogance and disdain for democracy in the most basic sense that is a kind of occupational hazard in all government organizations everywhere. All insiders within government organizations, or at least their leaders, are inclined to think that there is never any alternative to the way things are currently run; that they have looked at all of the conceivable alternatives and none are viable, making any criticism from the outside simply an annoying waste of time. What this tone reveals, however, is often simply a narrowing of basic vision, and a basic instinct for institutional survival. And this tone will tend to piss people off when they encounter it from anyone in power, and living off the tax payer dollar to boot. My response to this tone would be to say: If we don't know the facts, then you should be doing more to educate us, and should not be afraid of showing us exactly what goes on within the organization. And, if the proper means don't exist to convey this information (i.e. if a message board isn't appropriate), then create the means.

[journeyman]

Someone mentioned a national cross country race series, like the road running series. That would be great for promoting the sport. Main issue: season is too short. We'd need to spread it out. In Quebec, we have a hard enough time setting the schedule as there is a xc race every weekend, and everyone is very jealous about guarding "their" date and maintaining "their" race. But there are routinely 2-3 road races in a weekend across the province in spring and summer. How do we get the roadie crowd into xc?

Here would be an imaginary, but exciting (I think) nation-wide series for post-collegiate elites, piggy-backing on some of the big university races.

End of September Western Invite (get Bob to open it up, if that's allowed, numbers-wise, by the golf course)
End of October Eastern Conference championship (either in Quebec or Maritimes, with all 10 CIS schools east of Ottawa)
Mid-November AO championships
Early January Calgary/Alberta race (there is an existing winter-long xc running series here I believe)
Early February BC national championship/WXC trials race

[oldster]

Kevin, right or wrong, what I have offered in an analysis, based on what I know about the culture of government organizations, of what I see as the underlying reasons for AC's attitude and behavior towards its critics. Since this is just a discussion forum, and we're just throwing out ideas, you are free to turn the tables and offer an explanation for why AC's critics behave the way they do. In the process, you could explain why I was able to get over 50 people, many of them quite conservative in temperament and politics (e.g. Martin D. and Bruce D., himself a former athletes rep, I believe), to sign a letter of protest against AC's actions around the WXC in 05. What is it that would compel people to do such a thing? Without offering some acknowledgment and understanding of why AC has critics in the first place, your defensive reaction risks becoming an example of exactly the kind of thing I referred to in my last post. AC's letter of response to OUR letter (I only wrote it, let's remember) in 05 displayed an acute lack of comprehension of the position of its critics, which is a clear hallmark of institutional insularity and narrowness of vision.

Meanwhile, a response to some of your points above:

-The suggestions you referred to above as akin to "separatism", while they may have been made in frustration, ARE actual, concrete suggestions for improvement around this issue. The only thing that makes them "unconstructive" or "unrealistic" is the very real power of AC to prevent them from ever happening. There is nothing inherently unrealistic or unconstructive about them, however. AC could conceivably agree to them. It won't, of course, but it could. People eventually backed off of these only because they realized they could never win in a contest with AC, should it come to that, and opted for a "realistic" and "positive approach-- i.e. one that accepted the position and power of AC on this, if not always its actual credibility.

-That those individuals who run AC love the sport and work for it outside their jobs is beside the point in a couple of ways. You can love the sport and still be wrong about what's best for its development. You can also love the sport but be willing to accept and work within a set of institutional structures that compel you to do make certain compromises which you may know are not right for the sport. In this respect, I have tremendous sympathy for anyone who works there. It cannot be an easy job. However, that's not going to stop me from speaking my mind about the direction of the organization, nor should it stop others. Whatever these people may have done in the past to develop this sport, and whatever they are doing outside their jobs today to help it, it is now their job to listen to (and hopefully try to understand) their well meaning critics. In my job, I get very pointed and often personal critiques of my performance all the time, most often from those who have little understanding of my job (i.e. students), yet I still make a sincere effort to understand where these criticisms are coming from. In this case, the critics are adults, some of whom with a lot of knowledge and experience about the subject in question, so AC has no excuse not to listen, understand, and communicate its position in an open and respectful manner.

-The "Friends of Canadian Athletics" letter (which was, to repeat, not MY letter alone) was first and foremost a letter of protest. In is in the very nature of letters of protest that they make demands. This is part of their tradition going back to the beginnings of political discourse. People in government get them all the time, and understand their basic meaning. It's not the function of a letter of protest to offer detailed, concrete suggestions for reform; it is to send a message of general dissatisfaction. (But, in fact, this letter did offer a couple of concrete suggests. It said, for instance, start funding junior and youth teams, because not funding them hurts athlete development. It was then up to AC, who are paid to figure these kinds of things out, to find a way to do this.)

-AC's critics are in no position whatsoever to offer "concrete suggestions for change" because we don't have nearly enough detailed information about how the organization works-- and, in particular, how it allocates its resources-- to make such suggestions. That we lack such information is actually part of the problem. And it is completely unreasonable to expect everyone who has criticisms of AC to come and work for/with it in order to get an inside view. How do we know that if we had a close look at how AC spends its money that we couldn't "solve" the problem of team funding in a second? And it is completely unreasonable for AC to simply say "trust us, we're the experts".

-Finally, if someone could show me ACs books and prove to me that the funding of youth and junior national teams (for instance) is an utter financial impossibility, and not simply an expedient policy decision, and that any attempt to fund them would end in the complete ruin of the organization, I would promise to shut my mouth about AC forever (and what a blessed relief that would be for all of us, me included!).

[ronb]

So, did our new organization fold?

[john]

Oct 27, 2009 14:21:32 GMT -5 journeyman said:

Here would be an imaginary, but exciting (I think) nation-wide series for post-collegiate elites, piggy-backing on some of the big university races.

End of September Western Invite (get Bob to open it up, if that's allowed, numbers-wise, by the golf course)
End of October Eastern Conference championship (either in Quebec or Maritimes, with all 10 CIS schools east of Ottawa)
Mid-November AO championships
Early January Calgary/Alberta race (there is an existing winter-long xc running series here I believe)
Early February BC national championship/WXC trials race

Some options to consider: Guelph has had their annual open race in mid-September for the last few years and I don't see that changing. For the last couple of years (that I know of) the Western Invite has had a 5 km alumni race before the university races at Thames Valley Golf Course. The Waterloo Open is generally the following weekend, which is 8km, then their is the Queens Open 10 km in mid-October and Brock has had an Open race the weekend after that the last couple of years.

[schester]

Some interesting remarks by Hendrick Ramaala (taken from www.runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=17977) that pertain closely to this thread:




I’d like to move away from you and now talk about South Africa. South Africa is a nation of 44 million people, while Kenya has around 30 million. Despite the fact that South Africa is a much larger country, it can’t seem to keep up with Kenya. Why is that, and what can South Africa do to increase its depth of distance runners?

HR: You are right. In Kenya, the runners are mostly from the same tribe and from the same region. The main thing is that they have role models and training camps. They have a system. They get them ready and get them out of the country—racing in Europe and America. Their training camps are professional. So are yours in America. I think America is starting to get it right with their training camps, getting athletes to train together under good coaches like Alberto Salazar. I follow U.S. running. I see changes. You are getting more and more good guys. They were there, but they were not discovered.

That is the same in South Africa. We have all this talent, but do not know what to do with it. Our coaches are struggling and our athletes are struggling. You need a structure and a system. The runners need to know that, if they train, they will have shelter, accommodations, a place to sleep. Athletes must worry about training and performance and not what they are going to eat, the bread-and-butter issues.

My country is struggling. We don’t have a system. The guys at the top are not interested much. They will talk it, but will always say the money is not coming. We take coaches to school, we talk all this big talk and then nothing happens. We need sponsors like soccer, rugby, or cricket have. They have the whole corporate world behind them. They get sponsors any time they want. In Kenya, athletics is the main sport; in Ethiopia, athletics is the main sport. In South Africa, athletics is maybe fourth or fifth on the list. We will struggle to get all this help like sponsorships and training camps. The other guys are grabbing everything out there. Take rugby: The kids are getting help from their schools; they have all these tournaments at the school level. Athletics is losing the talent to rugby, cricket, and soccer. How are we going to get the best athletes? The school kids go to these sports, because the sports are world-class in our country. It’s kind of frustrating. I wish I could do something, but I have my career.

It sounds like Athletics South Africa is kind of a mess right now, considering what you just talked about along with the Caster Semenya situation. When your career winds down, will you be getting involved to clean it up? You are a lawyer and a world-class runner, so this looks like the perfect combination to make a difference.

HR: That is possible. Once things slow down for me, maybe I’ll take these things seriously and get more involved. I can see where the problem is. I’ve spoken to a lot of athletes, commentators, and experts on what is needed. There are all these politics coming in, though. Nobody wants to hear the truth. It’s all about politics. You don’t need to run the federation to fix it. You don’t need to be in a powerful position to fix it. You just need to get a group of kids who have talent and promise and give them bread and butter, shelter, get them into a camp, let them train, and promise them trips to America or Europe. After that, you will get support. In this country, you get rewarded for winning. The new talent doesn’t get spotted. In this country, you get spotted by winning a gold medal. How you got it is your business.

And that seems to go with how you made it. You didn’t have a coach and kind of made yourself in this broken system. Would you agree?

HR: When I was coming up, we didn’t have coaches. For me, it’s too late, I’m not going to have a coach. When I was growing up, it was the 1990s. The 1990s and the 2000s are completely different. Most of the athletes were on their own. Why? Because there was nobody else there for them. You were on your own then. These days, we have some coaches coming up with the athletes. Still, I am optimistic. I don’t think we can catch Kenya or Ethiopia, because they are just way too far ahead in the front. I think we can get somewhere in the near future.

We are paying for our system now. It’s time for us to play catch-up. We have the talent and have the infrastructure. The athletes just need support. It’s not going to happen right now. It takes three to four years just to make an athlete.

[wetcoast]

www.flotrack.org/articles/view/1514-athletics-canadas-apparent-albatross

[SI]

From that article:

"The Canadian athletes who are debating AC’s engagement are looking for a world stage to perform on, in order to expose this rising performance level to higher competition – to raise the bar, as it were."

I found one and it's pretty close! I think you can get there from Buffalo for 49.00. I know people believe the above party line but no one has yet properly explained to me why all of these athletes that hunger for and need this higher competition wouldn't be encouraged by the people making these statements to be here today.

City Marathon - Pro Athletes Entry File

Bib Last First M/F City ST Nation DoB PB Affiliation Start
1 Gomes dos Santos Marilson M Sao Paulo BRA 06-Aug-1977 2:08:37 Pão de Açucar / Nike Blue
3 Kwambai James M Eldoret KEN 28-Feb-1983 2:04:27 Nike Blue
4 Gharib Jaouad M Rabat MAR 22-May-1972 2:05:27 adidas Blue
5 Hall Ryan M Mammoth Lakes CA USA 14-Oct-1982 2:06:17 Asics Blue
6 Cheruiyot Robert Kipkoech M Eldoret KEN 26-Sep-1978 2:07:14 Nike Blue
7 Makau Patrick M Ngong KEN 02-Mar-1985 2:06:14 adidas Blue
8 Keflezighi Meb M Mammoth Lakes CA USA 05-May-1975 2:09:21 Nike Blue
9 Ramaala Hendrick M Johannesburg RSA 02-Feb-1972 2:06:55 adidas Blue
10 Abdirahman Abdi M Tucson AZ USA 01-Jan-1977 2:08:56 Nike Blue
11 Bouramdane Abderrahime M Fes MAR 01-Jan-1978 2:08:20 adidas Blue
12 Kipkoech Jackson Kotut M Kapsabet KEN 12-Feb-1988 2:08:07 UK 9 Blue
14 Sell Brian M Rochester MI USA 11-Apr-1978 2:10:47 Brooks Hansons Blue
15 Torres Jorge M Boulder CO USA 22-Aug-1980 Debut Reebok Blue
16 Lehmkuhle Jason M Minneapolis MN USA 04-Oct-1977 2:12:54 Team USA Minnesota/Saucony Blue
17 Asmerom Bolota M Oakland CA USA 12-Oct-1978 2:16:37 Nike Blue
18 Raabe Christopher M Washington DC USA 16-Nov-1978 2:15:13 Georgetown Running Co Blue
19 Arciniaga Nick M Rochester Hills MI USA 30-Jun-1983 2:16:13 Brooks Hansons Blue
20 Bizuneh Fasil M Flagstaff AZ USA 05-May-1980 2:16:47 New Balance Blue
21 Gilmore Peter M San Mateo CA USA 11-May-1977 2:12:45 MarathonGuide.com Blue
22 Browne Dan M Chula Vista CA USA 24-Jun-1975 2:11:35 WCAP Blue
23 Tarpy Pat M Providence RI USA 17-Jun-1982 Debut Strands Blue
24 King Max M Bend OR USA 24-Feb-1980 Debut Bowerman Athletic Club Blue
25 Ordway Josh M Kettering OH USA 11-Jun-1980 2:15:39 Columbus Running Co. Blue
26 Hooley Matt M Madison WI USA 27-Jun-1982 2:18:38 Strands Blue
28 Reneau Mike M Houlton WI USA 07-Apr-1978 2:16:20 Strands Blue
29 Sayenko Mike M Bellevue WA USA 12-Jul-1984 2:18:35 Strands Blue
30 Lundstrom Chris M Minneapolis MN USA 11-Mar-1976 2:17:34 Mizuno Blue
31 Moen Josh M Minneapolis MN USA 03-May-1982 2:23:16 Team USA MN/Brooks Blue
33 Eberly Josh M Gunnison CO USA 02-Oct-1980 2:19:29 Brooks Blue
34 Wagner Allen M Huntington Valley PA USA 03-Oct-1980 2:18:25 BrynMawr Running Club Blue
35 Tufa Genna M Bronx NY ETH 13-Jul-1984 2:17:38 Westchester TC Blue
36 Rodriguez Celedonio M Flagstaff AZ USA 10-Nov-1980 2:21:55 Strands Blue
37 Deneke Teklu Tefera M New York NY ETH 23-Jul-1979 2:12:05 West Side Runners Blue
38 Girma Tesfaye M Bronx NY ETH 13-Sep-1982 2:17:06 West Side Runners Blue
39 Bourifa Migidio M Bergamo ITA 31-Jan-1969 2:09:07 At. Valle Brembana Blue
40 Awol Mohammed M Bronx NY ETH 10-Jan-1978 2:17:15 West Side Runners Blue
41 Kaledin Sergey M Ufa RUS 10-Feb-1968 2:12:14 Foot Solutions Team Blue
42 Kabiso Kassahun M Bronx NY ETH 08-Oct-1983 2:14:59 Westchester TC Blue
43 Abebe Tsegaye Halefom M New York NY ETH 12-Sep-1982 2:14:30 West Side Runners Blue
45 de Souza Jose Telles M Sao Paulo BRA 22-Apr-1971 2:12:24 E.C.Pinheiros Blue
46 Deniboba Deresse M Bronx NY ETH 15-May-1982 2:21:54 Westchester TC Blue
47 Morseman Bryan M Addison NY USA 04-Sep-1985 2:23:59 MarathonGuide.com Blue
48 Paredes Benjamin M Mexico City MEX 07-Aug-1961 2:10:40 Unattached Blue
49 Ornelas Helder M POR 06-May-1974 2:09:59 Unattached Blue
52 McGrath Dan M Lynbrook NY USA 18-Apr-1983 2:23:04 A New Breed Blue
54 Abate Gabriele M Chiusa di San Michele ITA 19-Aug-1979 2:20:34 G.S. Orecchiella Garfagnana Blue
55 Joslyn Fred M Binghamton NY USA 12-Feb-1984 2:23:54 NYAC Blue
57 Ruggiero Giovanni M Sorrento ITA 19-Jan-1974 2:09:53 Forestale Blue
58 Ribera Francisco M Alicante ESP 01-Jul-1968 2:17:38 Stands Orange
59 Holovnytskyy Oleksander M Brooklyn NY UKR 29-Jun-1975 2:19:10 Warren Street Blue
70 García Jesús Ángel M Lleida ESP 17-Oct-1969 Debut Canal Isabel II Orange
71 Gruber Charlie M Arvada CO USA 08-Aug-1978 Debut Unattached Orange
73 Morgan Gary M Clarkston MI USA 07-Jan-1960 2:35:40 NYAC Orange
74 Borghuis Bart M Arlington VA NED 17-Oct-1975 2:32:04 Unattached Orange
77 De Highden Rod M Melbourne VI AUS 15-Jan-1969 2:13:53 Unattached Orange
79 Achmüller Hermann M Pfalzen ITA 17-Feb-1971 2:18:05 Südtiroler Laufverein Orange
94 Silva German M San Luis Potosi MEX 9-Jan-1968 2:09:18 Nike Orange
99 Anton Abel M Soria ESP 24-Oct-1962 2:07:57 Strands Orange
111 Radcliffe Paula F Monte Carlo GBR 17-Dec-1973 2:15:25 Nike Blue
112 Kosgei Salina F Eldoret KEN 16-Nov-1976 2:23:22 adidas Blue
114 Kano Yuri F Tokyo JPN 27-Oct-1978 2:24:27 Second Wind AC Blue
115 Daunay Christelle F Paris FRA 05-Dec-1974 2:25:43 Nike Blue
117 Tulu Derartu F Addis Ababa ETH 21-Mar-1972 2:23:30 Mizuno Blue
118 Lewy Boulet Magdalena F Oakland CA USA 01-Aug-1973 2:30:19 Saucony Blue
119 Westover Heidi F Acworth NH USA 19-Jan-1981 2:35:02 BAA Blue
120 Ross-Cope Michelle F Newcastle under Lyme GBR 31-Jan-1972 2:36:02 Asics Blue
121 Deba Buzunesh F Bronx NY ETH 08-Sep-1987 2:44:22 Westchester TC Blue
122 Abera Legesse Hirut F New York NY ETH 16-Jun-1982 2:37:21 West Side Runners Blue
123 Ficker Desiree F Austin TX USA 09-Dec-1976 2:40:28 Asics Blue
124 Biset Abrha Serkalem F Santa Fe NM ETH 08-Mar-1987 2:38:37 West Side Runners Blue
125 Fawke Kim F Bridgnorth GBR 02-Jul-1975 2:39:22 Telford AC Blue
126 Janosikova Katarina F Astoria NY SVK 26-Sep-1980 2:42:57 Running Divas New York Blue
128 Gurma Muliye F Silver Spring MD ETH 20-Jan-1984 2:39:55 West Side Runners Blue
129 Mandefro Hirut F Silver Spring MD ETH 05-Aug-1985 2:51:59 West Side Runners Blue
130 Ganushina Victoria F Brooklyn NY UKR 20-Feb-1980 2:42:50 Warren Street Blue
131 Williams Jolene F Jacksonville FL IRL 28-Oct-1977 Debut Blue
133 Kotu Meseret F New York NY ETH 20-Nov-1981 2:30:26 West Side Runners Blue
134 Eap Sopagna F McKinleyville CA USA 03-Apr-1981 2:40:19 Brooks Blue
136 Martin Jenifer F Clifton NJ USA 11-Feb-1972 2:53:28 Fleet Feet Blue
137 Guiney Megan F New York NY USA 03-Nov-1980 2:54:39 NYAC Blue
139 Ramsey Christine F Baltimore MD USA 13-Nov-1982 2:58:41 Unattached Blue
140 Petrova Ludmila F Cheboksary RUS 07-Oct-1968 2:21:29 adidas Blue
141 Glockenmeier Christine F Basking Ridge NJ USA 11-Dec-1967 2:47:52 Warren Street Blue
144 Fiacconi Franca F Rome ITA 04-Oct-1965 2:25:17 Unattached Orange
146 Casey Sheila F Park Ridge NJ USA 29-May-1969 2:50:02 Running Divas New York Blue
150 Yau Rebecca F New York NY USA 30-Sep-1986 Debut Central Park Track Club Blue
151 Mullen Catha F New York NY USA 11-Apr-1985 Debut NYAC Blue
152 Samuelson Joan F Freeport ME USA 16-May-1957 2:21:21 Nike Orange
191 Davies Caryn F Ithaca NY USA 14-Apr-1982 Debut Unattached Orange
192 Wilding Catherine F London GBR 07-Mar-1971 2:49:07 Serpentine Running Club Blue
199 Loroupe Tegla F Pokot KEN 09-May-1973 2:20:43 Shoe4Africa Orange

[saskatchewan]

i'd second Oldster's comments about seeing AC's books. My finance background makes me skeptical of $ arguements on both sides of the debate without a clear breakdown of the numbers. Let's see a detailed $ breakdown of AC's financials and let the numbers speak for themselves. Ideally that would be much greater level of detail then just in the annual audited AC FS' as these usually don't have to get into a whole lot of detail (this fact usually seems to surprise people outside the finance/accounting area).

Can anyone here provide a hyperlink to some detailed AC $ figures for the past 5 yrs, so we can actually put some analysis to all the claims (on both sides of the debate)?

Kevin, Ron, Oldster, any solid AC financial $ figures you can share with the group? I'm up for doing the analysis if i can get the data, as this is what i do for a living.

[Steve Weiler]

Nov 1, 2009 3:04:11 GMT -5 wetcoast said:

www.flotrack.org/articles/view/1514-athletics-canadas-apparent-albatross

"I’d pay an extra $1 on each of my race entries to help send athletes to IAAF World Cross-Country Championships or any other international competition and to help fund junior development.


Maybe, just maybe, the vocal few who aim to organize collectively for the benefit of this country’s racing future will approach AC with a well thought out plan and to that, AC should listen."

[champion]

If you're interested in AC financials, I would contact Atlee Mahorn. He is on the board of AC, has an MBA in International Business and manages a large financial portfolio. His email address, from the AC website, is:

[e-mail]

He was quite vocal about AC when he was an athlete himself and might be sympathetic to some of your concerns.

[oldster]

Sask, if I had any such figures, you would have them in an instant. I think nothing short of a Freedom of Information request could unearth these, although I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

And, wetscoast, nice piece. I like the $1 idea. However, the elephant in the room when it comes to AC approving qualified Canadians to compete internationally is the over-all, Sport Canada, administrative structure within which it operates. From the point of view of the government in general, the main pay-off from funding "amateur" sport is in terms of propaganda, pure and simple; thus, Sport Canada allots funds to national sport branches based on the percentage of their athletes in the top 8, 16, etc. , in the world, regardless of the sport in question (i.e. on the assumption that Canadians will be equally filled with patriotic pride and loyalty to the government over a gold medal in short track speed skating as in the marathon). If AC were to start sending all qualified Canadian athletes to the international meets for which they qualify, their performance percentages would drop, and so would their Sport Canada funding. And, if they actually funded the travel of said qualified Canadians, they would doubly lose. (Although, I'm not sure how this all works for youths and juniors. I don't think their performances are considered in this equation, which is part of why the lack of travel funding for these teams so aggrieves me.) This is partly why AC talks so much about "promoting excellence" in discussions about selection, rather than about financial costs. AC, like the rest of us in this sport, really does want to see Canadians excel internationally; however, when it references "high standards" and "excellence", it really means something a little more specific. It means "excellence" MINUS all of the near-excellence and non-excellence, since, in terms of how it is rated and funded by Sport Canada, the latter counts against the former. In contrast, when the rest of us talk about Canadian "excellence" internationally, we don't exclude all of the near-excellence and non-excellence; rather, we recognize that a lot of the near and non-excellence is a necessary stepping stone to the excellence itself. AC, being driven by immediate budgetary concerns, does not have the luxury of worrying about anything but the excellence; indeed, supporting the near and non-excellence, at least as far a giving it international experience, is often directly counter-productive to its institutional aims. This is what I've been saying all along about the whole model within which AC is situated (and which is seems not just to accept but to embrace) being structurally antithetical to sport development. Sport development from ACs point of view means directing more money to athletes who have already managed to become world class, or nearly world class, on their own, or with the support of clubs and schools. There basically is NO sport development in Canada apart from what is provided basically free of charge by schools and clubs (and the NCAA in particular). And the main avenue open to AC to become a supporter of development is, I think, through the funding youth and junior teams, which helps ensure that very talented kids are not forced to choose other sports when confronted with a 2 or 3 thousand dollar tab to represent the country; yet, AC continues to claim that it cannot "afford" to do this.

Even if we were able to drive a dump truck full of private money up to AC's door, it would still probably never agree to allow all qualified Canadians to represent the country internationally-- unless that dump truck full of money could completely replace the government funding it would lose when the relative "excellence" of Canadian athletics began to slide, or appear to slide. To put it simply, AC must in the first instance act to ensure the continued existence of AC. Only to the extent that the continued existence of AC is synonymous with the existence of Canadian athletics itself are AC's efforts at self-preservation also good for Canadian athletics. However, to the extent that there is a distinction to be made between Athletics Canada and Canadian athletics-- and I think there is, particularly where the development of Canadian athletes is concerned-- it is possible that AC's efforts at self-preservation might actually hurt Canadian athletics in the long run. I think we may have actually reached that point, or will in the next few years.

[journeyman]

Oct 29, 2009 21:53:42 GMT -5 john said:

Oct 27, 2009 14:21:32 GMT -5 journeyman said:

Here would be an imaginary, but exciting (I think) nation-wide series for post-collegiate elites, piggy-backing on some of the big university races.

End of September Western Invite (get Bob to open it up, if that's allowed, numbers-wise, by the golf course)
End of October Eastern Conference championship (either in Quebec or Maritimes, with all 10 CIS schools east of Ottawa)
Mid-November AO championships
Early January Calgary/Alberta race (there is an existing winter-long xc running series here I believe)
Early February BC national championship/WXC trials race

Some options to consider: Guelph has had their annual open race in mid-September for the last few years and I don't see that changing. For the last couple of years (that I know of) the Western Invite has had a 5 km alumni race before the university races at Thames Valley Golf Course. The Waterloo Open is generally the following weekend, which is 8km, then their is the Queens Open 10 km in mid-October and Brock has had an Open race the weekend after that the last couple of years.

There are lots of good races. I think the key would be to designate one or two that could handle the added infrastructure of bringing in athletes from around the country, like the www.canadarunningseries.com/ does.

[Bomba]

Steve,

I think you have nicely hit the nail on the head and some of ideas of sully (egs it's easy to sit on a message board and criticize)...and that is the structure and contraints that AC faces in regards to funding vs those who can see the potential in a XC organization that has more flexibility and self interest in creating soemthing 'special' and indepedent.

So a few situations arise (and something I've chatted about before) and that is wht does AC lose Sports Canada funding for Wld XC, yet gets nothing in return. By that i mean our sprint relay teams get carded for their results, but XC gets nothing (egs female short course team that was 3rd a few yrs ago should technically get A carded).....

.....so in being contructive here, why not have AC separate XC from track funding with Sport Canada (soemthignnthey'd have to proose). In that regard create a separate piece of XC (under AC's umbrella), but with it's own agenda, organization (egs that is more controlled by the distance people of XC egs thelma, martin, scott, etc....) that has separate funding (egs as outlined by Matt).

Maybe I am wrong here but XC has always been it's own separate entity in many respects. I have no idea on the costs of hosting Can XC, but there always seems to be a decent turnout, so why not make it's own separate entity in protocol.

The issues of sponsorship could easily be rectified (egs Guelph this yr has their own sponsor to go hand in hand with AC's) and a list of regulations on wld Xc team sponsorship could be easily created (egs no direct conflict with AC's sponsors so no adidas vs nike....nike would be he official spnosr, but some other comanies could come into play). In this regards make Wld Xc more grassroots, more runner centered and more coporate.

In this way the runners and those who have more interest in XC can create an infrastructure that is directly ralated to their own wants/needs as opposed to AC's (who are more concerned and constrained by gov't bureacracy).

Alos allow the XC body to decide on direct funding. Egs Number of medical staff, coaches, AC representatives, etc..... and also allow the XC body to have the autonomy to have full access to the IAAF funding that exists egs if u send a full team then you get 'X' amount of money or the number of free entries that IAAF allows per team (that does change but I am pretty sure it still exists egs each country used to get 1 free entry per event)

Of course this all depends on whether AC is willing to give up some of their power to a slightly autonomous body and create a situation where they lose out on some trips for the AC brass Ultimately they would ahve to go to Sports Canada with the ideas outlined above)......and on the other side it the people who bitch, whine, complain the most (hee hee) would have to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is (but like i said before one guys like a Bob Reid proves it can be done easily and efficiently when someone 1) thinks outside the box and 2) is truly intrinsically passionate about allowing athletes to achieve their greatest potential (no offence to AC's staff, but I still say, whether kevin agrees with this or not, that people will protect their careers, etc as the first priority......I'd do the same thing if it was my job, income, family, etc..)

[Bomba]

..sorry i should add that a XC board would be more controlled by a separate entity that is made by non AC staff and by more independent sources......in this way if it fails or succeeds is a direct result of the runners and people who want more autonomy (egs use the model of the Ottawa marathon and AC)

[oldster]

Some excellent points here, Bomba. Call it separatism if you want, but the idea of an autonomous organization running the X-C program is, on its merits alone, a realistic and constructive one. Mountain running is at least semi-autonomous, so why not X-C? They are, in fact, very similar sports and, in the long run, there may even be some cross-over (pun not intended) between them in terms of athletes. Like I said, if AC doesn't ever plan to fund it (and, let's face it, it never will), and it stands to gain nothing from it in terms of funding points (or whatever they're actually called), then why on earth is it such a crazy idea that they would some day relinquish control over it?

And thanks for making the point that criticism of AC does not automatically entail criticism of individual people or their motives. I have no idea how the individuals at AC feel about the organization's direction, nor is this relevant. Lots of us have big misgivings about the organizations we work for, just as many of us support these organizations. Usually, it's a matter of a little of each. That AC works to ensure its own preservation first is akin to a truism. My only criticism is that its efforts at self-preservation may not be helping, and may indeed be hurting, the development of the sport as a whole. Ultimately though, this is a problem of structure, not of bad individual motives. Structural or not, however, pressure of some kind must be brought to bear in order for change to occur. Progressive change almost never comes about any other way. As an appropriate case in point, the whole Athlete Assistance Plan itself, which largely brought professional sports admin -- and AC's forerunner, the CTFA, in particular-- into existence in the first place, was the product of protest and concerted activism on the part of a few articulate and politicized athletes-- including distance runners Abbie Hoffman and Bruce Kidd. This didn't come about by sitting back and hoping the existing sports leadership would eventually do the right thing, or worrying about whose feelings might get hurt when hard, public arguments had to be made. Change may not come about directly out of this particular discussion, but this medium has become one of the means of future change in a whole range of areas. It's in places like this where people can at least begin to get their ideas straight, which is a first step to acting. That some kind of real organization will eventually come out of this, I'm convinced.

[Bomba]

I am by now means some capatalistic backer, but the advent of some sort of self interest for XC as opposed to bureacratic self interest is key to my argument.

Steve,

I think that people assume when u say that AC will protect it's own backside that this means they are evil people who lack character. I just either agree or disagree...nothing more....nothing less. I for one don't believe that the people at AC are evil. But like all of use they are people and therefore are at the whims of what they need/want. Sometimes people see this a weakness of character as opposed to (and u can correct me if I am wrong) whereas you and I see it as simply human nature.

Not that i am an expert in the field but look at many economics book and often general themes is that if you create a market of self interest then the greatest good can come as people create and do things to suit what is needed (in Canada that seems to be a bad word, whereas in the US it is a good thing, but then again that's due in large part to their general dislike/distrust of gov't/buracracy).

In that respects i say do things the good ol Canadian way.....somewhere in the middle

[oldster]

Exactly. Organizational behaviour is driven to a large extent by incentive structures, and sometimes these can go awry in terms of what many stakeholders think ought to be the overall aims of the organization. When this results, conflict often ensues. And conflict operates according to the logic of incentives too. An acute critique, if it manages to become the center of an actual organization, or informal movement, creates a new incentive for the first organization; namely, to respond to the critique and to do something about the new organization or movement-- either counter it or accept it and create change. If the critique fails to become the basis for a real organization or movement, then it is not an effective critique. This is where we stand vis a vis AC on this issue. We have a set of long-standing grievances, and a few ideas for change (which are somewhat limited by lack of detailed information) which amount to a critique of AC, but we have never managed to turn this into an actual organization or movement for change; thus, AC has not been "incentivized" to act on these grievances. If an organization or movement never emerges out of this critique, we will have to accept that it is not, or not yet, an effective critique as far as most stakeholders are concerned. In any case, it is doubtful that simply asking for change, or supplying some ideas for change, is going to be sufficient to alter the existing structure of incentives within this organization. This is not personal. This is simply politics 101.

[ronb]

The BC Cross Country Championships were co-hosted by BC Cross Country / labelled a "division of BC Athletics". It would be interesting to hear how that came about, and how it is working. Of course, you are starting with an organization that has long been supportive of cross-country and road running.

[saskatchewan]

I guess i shouldn't be so lazy. 10sec on google gave me the AC 2009 annual report

www.athletics.ca/files///ANNUAL_REPORT_2009.PDF

Not a pretty picture on the sales/marketing side. Marketing financial revenues of $323K (excluding in kind sponsorships) and sales of $11K.

I'm not saying that money is going to solve all our sports problems (by any means), but those AC financials are pretty lean regardless of the economic times. AC has to start tapping private enterprise $ if it wants to think about funding teams in the future.

When i have some time i'll do some analysis of AC vs 2nd tier sports financials to see how AC stacks up. I've got to think that the practically non-existent sales figure is a good place for AC to start concentrating on (good news is they can only get better).

If anyone has any great insights on AC's FS' please post them, perhaps i'm missing something obvious (as i definitely don't presume to know AC's inner workings, just reviewing its publically shared FS as i would any other company).

Oldster, Bomba, SI, Journeyman, Matt; lots of good discussion. You have all given me a lot to think about.

[oldster]

Sask, to get a really proper picture, we would still need to see a more detailed breakdown of AC's actual expenses. The categories listed are very broad, and consequently include some quite large numbers. I'll take your word that the organization could do better in the sales/marketing area, but I'd still be curious to see exactly how those expenses break down. In other words, I'd like to be shown exactly what AC is using that money for instead of funding teams (and I would remain open to being convinced that its current uses deliver more development bang for the buck than would, say, the funding of youth and junior teams, if anyone could actually do that). I know it USED to fund WXC teams, and I suspect that it doesn't have any less money now than it did back in the late 80s/early 90s, so I wonder what those funds are now being used for.

[ronb]

So, are we forming some sort of organization, or not? My sense is that we need to organize, determine some priority programs and principles, and ask AC if they are interested in talking to us.
1) Who can be a member, how do we get to be members?
2) A member of what? What do we stand for and believe in?
3) I respectfully suggest that the talk about funds and fund-raising is a step that needs to follow steps 1 and 2. If we can't agree on the first couple of steps, then we aren't going
anywhere, as I see it.

[saskatchewan]

Agreed, the FS are far too high level for the purposes on the analysis you indicate.

My take is just to look at AC like any other organization and compare it to its peers to see where are its strengths/weaknesses. I'll report back (likely be a few days as work is too busy) on what i find.

Has anyone attempted the obvious of just contacting AC directly and request a more detailed breakdown of the funding figures?

[saskatchewan]

Ron,

I would suggest we begin by formally requesting who would be interested in paying an annual membership fee (say $50) to an organization/association that would represent the interests of Canadian Distance Running. Get everyone's e-mails and make up a contact list. Once you know you have a few $$ committed, set up some sort of legal entity (doesn't have to be fancy) with a basic board and draw up a basic charter, and we are off. You might do up a quasi charter first before asking for memberships just so people understand what they are supporting (to some of Kevin's earlier points that there have been a wide variety of opinions issues here so it wasn't entirely clear what was being called for). The order of this is rather 'chicken and egg' like.

I think first though we need to contact Halvorson and others and ensure that any new organization will complement the good work already done with existing organizations outside AC. Don't want to replicate AC's weaknesses by not working with existing organizations.

Not entirely sure what i can bring to the organization/association as i am currently extremely busy with work, professional studies, and a young family, but i'll certainly give you $50 to start with (for my initial membership) and help out (if only by e-mail initially) where i can. Sounds like there are also lots of similar minded people here.

Start signing them up and just see where this thing goes!

[HHH]

Nov 1, 2009 23:46:11 GMT -5 ronb said:

2) A member of what? What do we stand for and believe in?

I think is the #1 thing we need to sort out. Proposal:

The Friends of Canadian distance running society exists to encourage and support distance running in Canada. The society will do everything in it's power to help Canadian distance runners achieve their full potential.

[saskatchewan]

Matt/Ron,

Is this proposed organization/association to support distance running in Canada, or specifically 'competitive' Canadian distance running opportunities and athletes, and to lobby AC in that regard?

For example, you could argue that distance running in SK is doing very well (lots of joggers on the trails with water bottles at the ready). However 'competitive' post university distance running opportunities are practically non-existent. Most 'races' and i use that term very loosely, are improperly measured, over-priced, and offer little or no prizes. The QCM marathon here has 3500 entrants, $0 prize money, and lots of tacky merchandise for sale. And yet QCM receives serious sponsorship $ from many companies in SK (i'll dig up the FS when i have a moment).

I want to be clear that while i don't have anything against the jogging movement, what i personally am interested is in supporting an association that lobbies AC and seeks to encourage 'competitive' distance running in Canada. So i am likely more in Oldster's camp on this.

Perhaps that view is rather elitest, but that is my view.

[ronb]

Just read over at Track & Field News Site that the New York Road Runners, who host the NY Marathon, have donated $ 750,000 over the last few years to the USA Distance Running Project, which helps fund some of the various elite distance training groups in the USA.
Does anyone know the relationship between the Distance Running Project, and USA Track &
Field?
I think we need some fundamental agreement on the "scope" of our mission, before we go after members, so I agree with Matt on that part.
1) The roots of our sport (distance running) are very strong in the schools. Much stronger in some Provinces than others, but still viable, and we might expect more activity as we develop more "elite" or emerging elite athletes.
2) I think distance running is doing fine at the collegiate level, although I do have some concerns around the area of too much racing, and not enough base building, in both Canadian and American Schools.
3) Clearly, the sport/activity of recreational running on the roads is doing just fine.
4) The area where a new organization or support group could be most effective, in my opinion, is helping to create a more vibrant program at the National and International level, to inspire and support more of our young runners to "keep it going", and take their talent to the next level, and the next, and the next. I think there are a number of possible initiatives in this area, some very low-cost, and low-org., and others not so much.

Perhaps we need to agree on whether this is just about cross-country, or just about the Worlds, or is an effort to raise the standards and depth in all our distance running events.
I can see an initial priority on trying to evaluate and improve the Cross-Country Program, and seeing that as a) a worthwhile goal in it's own right, and b) a tool to improve the overall distance running program.

[ronb]

More on the USA Distance Project: Someone can link to USA Track & Field / Programs...
In the meantime, the USA Distance Project

* is a collaborative partnership of USA Track & Field, major USA running events and running-related corporations, and the USA Track & Field Foundation.

* is devoted to sustaining the long-term development of elite USA distance athletes, enabling them to compete successfully at domestic and international competitions, and major championship events.

* is dedicated to advancing elite distance running in America through support of group training centres and "up and coming" athletes.

Different levels of sponsorship are available from the Bronze level ( 5 year commitment at
$ 10,000 per year) to the Gold level (5 year commitment at $ 50,000 per year), and the organization has tax deductible status.
3 of the major sponsors are New York Road Runners, Houston Marathon, and the Twin Cities Marathon.

Sounds good to me....