|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 9, 2009 1:58:52 GMT -5
How about this: what is your dream team for senior men and women? (someone already mentioned that juniors usually fill the spots) Isn't it top 6? So AC is suggesting that we select the best, and we are complaining? The goal has always been to "select the best," even with more "open" criteria. It's not like we used to pick spots 8 to 14 and exclude the top finishers from the team. The problem in recent years is that some of the top guys have decided not to go. Funding is part of it, but I don't think it's the only thing. I declined a spot on the team one year even though I had a good job at the time and the money wouldn't have been a problem. My coach wanted me to focus on building up for the summer track season, and didn't think preparing to be race-fit in March was the right way to go. You can agree or disagree with this approach (I got injured after my first track race that year, so I sure wish I'd gone to WXC!), but those decisions are up to athletes and coaches, not the peanut gallery. The question is, does refusing to take anyone outside the top 8 somehow make it more likely that our "dream team" will go? I don't see that happening. More likely, it encourages guys who were on the fence about nationals (say middle-distance guys and marathoners) not to show up at all, so they don't screw things up. Which brings us back to the question everyone is asking: what's the upside of refusing to send a team (one of the last developmental teams left for senior athletes) unless the very best guys are willing to go? And remember, we're not just talking about worlds here: they're applying the exact same standards to the Americas meet, which in the past few years was being hyped as the competitive level more suitable to our teams. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 9, 2009 7:28:51 GMT -5
"....pressure to send a full team no matter what...." Contrast that with what we see here! Invert it, and you might get a better feel. Oh, yeah, that. Yes, we are very loved by the WMRA. But the invitation still stands! |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 9, 2009 7:37:25 GMT -5
[ Which brings us back to the question everyone is asking: what's the upside of refusing to send a team (one of the last developmental teams left for senior athletes) unless the very best guys are willing to go? And remember, we're not just talking about worlds here: they're applying the exact same standards to the Americas meet, which in the past few years was being hyped as the competitive level more suitable to our teams. I guess the upside is that we create a culture of excellence, where being the best is rewarded, as opposed to being the next-best. That's not a slight to the 8-15 guys and girls. The good thing about our sport is that team selection should, in theory, be very easy. You don't have to figure out if taking a 13th defensive forward is a better idea than taking a small, power play specialist as a 7th defenceman. It's pretty simple: fastest is fastest. I know from my experience on the mountain running team that while I was happy to have gone, and I certainly got into the best shape of my life for those races, I was left with the feeling that I really didn't belong on that team because there were many others who would have done a much better job. I can't say that anyone outside of the top 8 at nationals would or should feel that way, but that's how I felt. I have been lucky enough to have been able to effect changes to bring stronger people on board and make the team as good as it should be (or close to it!), but again, that's a different environment. Regardless, I feel better about a team that is striving to be the best, than one that is making do with what it's got. Anyway, I don't think there is anything wrong with restricting the team. Tightening standards seems to have workded as a long-term strategy elsewhere in Canadian athletics. Our distance team has gotten better, even if we took a bit of a step back at the last World Championships. Since AC got tight with its standards, athletes have risen to the challenge. I don't see why this will be any different. |
|
tc
New Member
Posts: 25 
|
Post by tc on Oct 9, 2009 8:28:42 GMT -5
I think the 'top-1/2' criteria is being overlooked. If AC wants the team to be top-1/2 potential, then a team will only go if our top guys make the team. Last year everyone would need to finish ~45th to get the team in the top-1/2. Our guys didn't crack the top-100. We need Coolsaet, Gillis, Wykes, Bairu, Watson, etc... all the best guys to declare, or they won't send a team. If these top guys decide not to run Nationals, a team won't go because of the top-1/2 team requirement.
The criteria is just another way of saying that they're only sending a team if every one of our top 5 guys in the country declares.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydolmage on Oct 9, 2009 8:30:21 GMT -5
In 2004, Rebecca Stallwood finished 32nd at World Cross Country, one of the top three best finishes ever for a Canadian woman at this meet.
The next year, she won the National cross meet.
She made that World championships team in 04 by placing 9th at the Canadian nationals.
I'm sure there are a lot of other versions of this story.
But again, just like the criteria we have seen in the past, without an explanation from AC, there is only one way to interpret these criteria: they remove opportunity rather than create it.
How terrible that Speed River has worked so hard on the National meet for the last three years, and really built it into something -- created atmosphere, brought in sponsors, increased numbers and developed community involvement -- and this year we might see a lot of that progress reversed because of these criteria.
Jay
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 9, 2009 8:36:45 GMT -5
[ Which brings us back to the question everyone is asking: what's the upside of refusing to send a team (one of the last developmental teams left for senior athletes) unless the very best guys are willing to go? And remember, we're not just talking about worlds here: they're applying the exact same standards to the Americas meet, which in the past few years was being hyped as the competitive level more suitable to our teams. I guess the upside is that we create a culture of excellence, where being the best is rewarded, as opposed to being the next-best. That's not a slight to the 8-15 guys and girls. The good thing about our sport is that team selection should, in theory, be very easy. You don't have to figure out if taking a 13th defensive forward is a better idea than taking a small, power play specialist as a 7th defenceman. It's pretty simple: fastest is fastest. I know from my experience on the mountain running team that while I was happy to have gone, and I certainly got into the best shape of my life for those races, I was left with the feeling that I really didn't belong on that team because there were many others who would have done a much better job. I can't say that anyone outside of the top 8 at nationals would or should feel that way, but that's how I felt. I have been lucky enough to have been able to effect changes to bring stronger people on board and make the team as good as it should be (or close to it!), but again, that's a different environment. Regardless, I feel better about a team that is striving to be the best, than one that is making do with what it's got. Anyway, I don't think there is anything wrong with restricting the team. Tightening standards seems to have workded as a long-term strategy elsewhere in Canadian athletics. Our distance team has gotten better, even if we took a bit of a step back at the last World Championships. Since AC got tight with its standards, athletes have risen to the challenge. I don't see why this will be any different. Journeyman: I am really finding it hard to see why you are so behind this. You think that this is going to help a self funded team rise to the challenge? This is the final nail in the coffin for the sport of cross country. This is AC's chance to say: 'See, even our best runners don't want to go. Why should we support this?'. AC doesn't want to send a team to worlds. They haven't wanted to for several years and this is their way out. There should not be restrictions put on self funded teams. Period. Take the top 8 guys and girls who want to go to world XC and let them pay their way to get there. Put restrictions on the team as AC has done and unless we as athletes do something, we won't be sending a team to worlds, I will put a case of beer on that right now if you think otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 9, 2009 10:33:01 GMT -5
Journeyman: I am really finding it hard to see why you are so behind this. You think that this is going to help a self funded team rise to the challenge? This is the final nail in the coffin for the sport of cross country. This is AC's chance to say: 'See, even our best runners don't want to go. Why should we support this?'. AC doesn't want to send a team to worlds. They haven't wanted to for several years and this is their way out. There should not be restrictions put on self funded teams. Period. Take the top 8 guys and girls who want to go to world XC and let them pay their way to get there. Put restrictions on the team as AC has done and unless we as athletes do something, we won't be sending a team to worlds, I will put a case of beer on that right now if you think otherwise. I am behind it because I think the long-term effect will be that we will get better teams. I can see how the opposing argument can be made, but I just don't think it will shake out that way. We may not send a team this year, but if cross country is really valuable as part of a year-round, elite-level training plan, then those people will step up. I find it hard to believe that with all the effort Speed River has put into the championships, that their coach would decide that World Cross is not a good option for his athletes. Note the comment about top half criteria above. As for funding, restricting the team actually helps self-funders because they are more likely to be able to tap into limited resources if they are anticipated to be in the top half of the World Champs. There is funding available, through prize money and through winning at Americas. So if the best runners go, it won't be so self-funded. If the next tier of runners go, then yes, it will be more self-funded because they won't be as likely to finish high at Americas and get that money. What these criteria do is actually lower the funding burden on the team members, while increasing the quality of the team. (Ijust wanted to emphasise this) I don't agree that there should not be restrictions on self-funded teams. Even if you have to foot some of the bill, it is still a privilege to represent Canada, and you still have to demonstrate some level of performance to be selected. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 9, 2009 10:44:36 GMT -5
I have some pretty strong feelings on this topic, which I will talk about later, with a bit more time. In the meanwhile, jaydolmage, did you state that Rebecca Stallwood's excellent 32nd place finish at Worlds was the 3rd best ever by Canadian woman? If that's what you said, and I am reading that correctly, then you are mistaken, by a long ways.
Alison Wiley was 2nd, Lynn Williams was 3rd, Debbie Scott was 8th/11th and 13th. I think those were the top 5, although I could be wrong on that. There have been several other finishes in the top 20 and top 30 by Canadian women. Does anybody have a complete list?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydolmage on Oct 9, 2009 11:01:01 GMT -5
Ronb,
I am definitely wrong -- please do correct me. Emilie Mondor was also 8th, I believe.
The point still stands: 32nd is a very good finish. Under the new criteria, she doesn't go.
I wonder what the odds are that someone like Rebecca then even continues to compete at that level after 2004 if she doesn't get the chance to go and have a breakout performance? I know (anecdotally) she got into medical school about 5 times, and turned it down year after year because she did get opportunities to continue to compete for Canada.
Jay
|
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Oct 9, 2009 11:37:10 GMT -5
also add to the list;
Nancy Rooks-12th('83)
Anne-Marie Malone-16th('83)
Sue Lee-16th('85)
|
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Oct 9, 2009 11:45:11 GMT -5
The point will (as Journeyman is saying I think) be deciding for/against opportunity versus representation. If the better runners (as those mentioned above) don't go, then we are sending inferior teams. Is there a point where this becomes self-defeating (even embarrassing) for the sake of experience. These aren't Juniors we are talking about - they should always have the opportunity (and most will go given that opportunity, even with the cost). The Seniors in Track have difficult standards to acheive in order to make Senior teams - if WXC (possibly becoming limited to every other year in future?) becomes a meet for also-rans (some feel it has come to this for Canadians anyway) then what is the benefit? Other than being able to claim that someone made a team, how does this fit into an AC athletic developmental model? The problem may be promoting the idea of individual development (a coach/athlete thing) against the backdrop of Teams which no one wants to fund (corporately) as success (top placings) isn't likely to happen. If the NACAC meet is going to become THE XC "meet" - it will also depend on how seriously the US takes either meet. If the US decides to pull out from World XC - they are sending less capable teams each year now it seems as well (and their teams are funded by USATF) then we may be fighting a losing battle.
As to Stallwood, certainly hers has been one of the better results in recent years - although the emphasis was on the short course teams (which won a team medal in 2004), so some of the better runners ran that race instead (it was funded!!), so her performance (good as it was) is rather misleading. During that period (1998-2006) others ran as well (Connolly 17th in '99) or almost (4 others in the 40's). The last LC result before the split (1997) and over 6km, was Butler's 33rd. Perhaps more poignant was M.Goulet's putting his eggs into the Short course basket for the sake of medal opportunities which has now left us with the situation at hand - costly teams that few "top" people really want to be on.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkitz on Oct 9, 2009 11:45:52 GMT -5
I am behind it because I think the long-term effect will be that we will get better teams. I can see how the opposing argument can be made, but I just don't think it will shake out that way. We may not send a team this year, but if cross country is really valuable as part of a year-round, elite-level training plan, then those people will step up. Who will step up? What do you mean by this? I find it hard to believe that with all the effort Speed River has put into the championships, that their coach would decide that World Cross is not a good option for his athletes. Note the comment about top half criteria above. Hasn't DST decided, repeatedly, that world cross was not a good decision for his athletes. And hasn't the Speed River group had some succes, over the last few years, taking that approach? I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect the guys in the top 6 to run World's against their will. |
|
|
|
Post by fastrunner155 on Oct 9, 2009 11:52:37 GMT -5
Kathy Butler was 4th in the short course in 1999. If I remember correctly, she had to pay her way onto that team but got some prize money for her 4th place finish.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 9, 2009 12:35:03 GMT -5
I am behind it because I think the long-term effect will be that we will get better teams. I can see how the opposing argument can be made, but I just don't think it will shake out that way. We may not send a team this year, but if cross country is really valuable as part of a year-round, elite-level training plan, then those people will step up. Who will step up? What do you mean by this? I find it hard to believe that with all the effort Speed River has put into the championships, that their coach would decide that World Cross is not a good option for his athletes. Note the comment about top half criteria above. Hasn't DST decided, repeatedly, that world cross was not a good decision for his athletes. And hasn't the Speed River group had some succes, over the last few years, taking that approach? I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect the guys in the top 6 to run World's against their will. I mean that if sending teams to World Cross Country is a worthwhile development endeavour that fits into an elite year-round competition plan, then the top runners will step up do it. It is up to the individual coach and athlete to decide what they want to do with the opportunities that present themselves. I was just refering to Speed River because someone mentioned the work the club has put in to the national championship. Obviously they see cross country has having value. I would think that percieved value, when balanced with individual athlete needs, would result in some of the top runners (who come from that group) choosing to run at nationals and at World Championships. 2006 saw Reid, Eric and Taylor Milne all compete for Canada at World Cross. I don't want to assume anything of anyone, but I don't think it is fair to say either, "well, Speed River doesn't think it's a good idea." I doubt that is true. It depends on the season and on the athlete. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 9, 2009 12:56:47 GMT -5
Nancy Rooks/Tinari had at least one other finish in the top 20, 19th, I think. Brenda Shackleton was 21st, Ulla Marquette was 25th. I think Angela Chalmers had a couple of top 30 performances. There is a complete list somewhere, probably in a file at Pacific Sport offices in Victoria. I had Roger Burrows do the complete history of Canadians at World Cross Country, and he put together a great document. I wonder if he kept a copy? Does anyone know where Roger is? Thin-skinned, do you have any more of the top results?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydolmage on Oct 9, 2009 13:06:21 GMT -5
Wow,
I guess I was really wrong.
My apologies.
Jay
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 9, 2009 13:24:35 GMT -5
Wow, I guess I was really wrong. My apologies. Jay Jay - no apologies required, expected, or accepted  I found another performance by Lynn Kanuka who was 23rd, and I think she probably had another performance in that range. The 1983 team was our best Senior Women's performance (that I can find), where we had Alison in 2nd, Nancy in 12th, Anne Marie in 16th, and Lynn in 23rd. That put our team 3rd overall. I know we Coaches were always wishing we could get our best 6 on the line in the same year at that time, as our Women's Team would have been one of the best in the World. We had most of them run in an Ekiden Relay in Japan in about 1985, and we came a close 2nd to the Russians. |
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Oct 9, 2009 13:28:06 GMT -5
I have all the wld Xc results in a book from the beginning to 2002.....I don't have access to it, but i know that anyone who was on the 2003 team has said book......it has every single result by every single person of every single wld xc meet (and the pre wld Xc yrs)
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 9, 2009 21:37:23 GMT -5
Wow, seeing all these old names and brilliant WXC finishes makes it stunningly clear just how far women's distance running has fallen in 20-odd years. Really stunning.
As for the new team program model: RIP Canadian international X-C. Simple as that. This only finishes what the de-funding of the team in the early 90s started. With the switch to bi-annual, we will likely never see another Canadian senior team at world X-C. It's funny that back when there was guaranteed full funding, almost all the top Canadian guys tried out for the team and went to worlds. Now, after years of self-funding, our top guys have been forced to find new ways to prepare for their spring and summer seasons and/or have lost interest, and a whole second tier of guys have long since lost a great reason to continue in the sport in a serious way. And now, after all but killing the program, they're saying to our top people: Put up or shut up. And when our top people fail to show up on cue to nationals and worlds, they will say: It's your fault. YOU killed it through your lack of interest. Priceless.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 9, 2009 22:03:59 GMT -5
Yep....Canadian International X-C is dead, as Steve said, RIP... Those were the days, my friends... Not that any of our top distance runners ever ran much X-C at that level, or  Oh well, at least we have 3 or 4 athletes that we hope will own the podium in 2012... The rest of us can go outside and play... What a joke ! |
|
|
|
Post by feens on Oct 9, 2009 22:09:41 GMT -5
Question...didn't AGSI fund a good chunk of last year's trip, and aren't they doing so again this year?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 9, 2009 22:55:50 GMT -5
Question...didn't AGSI fund a good chunk of last year's trip, and aren't they doing so again this year? I don't know about the funding, feens.... But the initiative, the leadership, the momentum, are going in the other direction. It's like, Cross-Country ? Who cares ? It's only one of the biggest participation sports in Canada, between our Schools and our Universities, and should/could be a "foundation" sport for so many more athletes, however we have the wrong organization in charge of leading this vision. Very sad ! What are our distance coaches being paid to do, by AC ? Does anybody know? |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 9, 2009 23:02:39 GMT -5
I mean that if sending teams to World Cross Country is a worthwhile development endeavour that fits into an elite year-round competition plan, then the top runners will step up do it. The key is the "if" in your sentence above. You're essentially playing a game of chicken with the top few runners (who for the most part have chosen NOT to run WXC for the past few years). So "if" it's worthwhile, they'll show up... And if they don't? Then you've lost the game of chicken, and international XC is gone. And I guarantee that a whole bunch of guys who've finished in the 10-40 spots at nationals over the past few years won't be there in future years. But as Ron said, who needs 'em? They were never podium material. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 10, 2009 0:05:39 GMT -5
I am behind it because I think the long-term effect will be that we will get better teams. I can see how the opposing argument can be made, but I just don't think it will shake out that way. We may not send a team this year, but if cross country is really valuable as part of a year-round, elite-level training plan, then those people will step up. I find it hard to believe that with all the effort Speed River has put into the championships, that their coach would decide that World Cross is not a good option for his athletes. Note the comment about top half criteria above. As for funding, restricting the team actually helps self-funders because they are more likely to be able to tap into limited resources if they are anticipated to be in the top half of the World Champs. There is funding available, through prize money and through winning at Americas. So if the best runners go, it won't be so self-funded. If the next tier of runners go, then yes, it will be more self-funded because they won't be as likely to finish high at Americas and get that money. What these criteria do is actually lower the funding burden on the team members, while increasing the quality of the team. (Ijust wanted to emphasise this) I don't agree that there should not be restrictions on self-funded teams. Even if you have to foot some of the bill, it is still a privilege to represent Canada, and you still have to demonstrate some level of performance to be selected. Journeyman: Why would those people step up? Because they should anyways even though they have to pay their own their way? Because it's a privledge to run for Canada and they should be happy to pay their own way? Because our top runners are now being forced to run worlds or else we cannot send a team and they will ultimately end up being the reason for us not sending a team to worlds? Wow. |
|
|
|
Post by feens on Oct 10, 2009 2:15:12 GMT -5
Alright, a few pieces of information from last year's setup: AGSI - put on the CDN XC Champs, and paid $8000 funding for the teams. see: www.guelphrunning.ca/news.php?id=7A quick excerpt from that: "When athletes have to give up their spots on the national team due to financial reasons it weakens the team and sets in motion a downward spiral. If Canada could send the first six athletes across the line at the Canadian Cross Country championships it would be sending a much stronger team." Last year's men's team finished 17th at World XC. Below is the results from Canadian XC Champs, World XC members bolded with their place at worlds in brackets. 1 BAIRU, SIMON 2 Watson, Robyn 3 WYKES, DYLAN 4 GILLIS, ERIC 5 MILNE, TAYLOR 6 THORSON, CLEVE 7 BOURGEOIS, JOËL (110) 8 NAKLUSKI, DEREK (126) 9 OSADUIK, STEVEN J. 10 GENEST, ALEX (109)11 KHAN, SAHEED (105)So, with that, we can see that last year we sent 7, 8, 10, 11, with our top finishers being 11, 10. Looking at that, I wonder if perhaps that is why AC has decided to put such an emphasis on top 6. Don't take that as my saying I think it's justified or not...I'm just trying to toss in some real figures and stats. Finally, AGSI is again the main sponsor of the Canadian XC champs this year, and is again put money forward to help fund the teams. I know that at least for myself, I think they deserve a lot of recognition for stepping up to fill this void. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 10, 2009 6:29:23 GMT -5
Journeyman: Why would those people step up? Because they should anyways even though they have to pay their own their way? Because it's a privledge to run for Canada and they should be happy to pay their own way? Because our top runners are now being forced to run worlds or else we cannot send a team and they will ultimately end up being the reason for us not sending a team to worlds? Wow. If cross country is as valuable as everyone on this thread is making it seem (and I agree that it is), then the best runners won't turn away just because of a funding issue (and by the way, there IS FUNDING, AGSI+winning at Americas=FUNDED). It is a privilege to run for Canada. They should be happy to run for Canada. If they run well, they don't have to pay their own way (which is the point everyone seems to be ignoring). LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: THIS IS NOT A FULLY SELF-FUNDED TRIP IF THE TOP RUNNERS GO AND FINISH TOP TWO AT AMERICAS. So don't say it is self-funded therefore anyone who wants to go has a "right" to go. First of all, no one has a "right" to compete anywhere in cross country or any other race. It's a privilege accorded by the cities who let us use their streets, parks and tracks, and by the organizers who put on the races. Second of all, there is no requirement whatsoever for the government or anybody to pay for our teams to run. BUT THEY ARE ANYWAY. No one is forced to do anything. It is not the responsibility of one athlete or a small group of athletes to ensure we send a team to World Cross every two years. I don't agree with the cynical view taken by Oldster and Ronb that AC will come along later and blame the athletes. I just don't see it shaking out that way. If you guys want to keep being pessimistic, that's fine, but from what I've seen, Canadian distance running has gotten BETTER in the last 10 years. No, it is not at the level it was in the 80s, and until the memories of those who were there fade enough not to remember it at all, it probably will not be. But this is not a crisis. This is a good thing. We have a ton of good, fast, young men and women out there. It's getting better. |
|
tc
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by tc on Oct 10, 2009 9:56:56 GMT -5
LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: THIS IS NOT A FULLY SELF-FUNDED TRIP IF THE TOP RUNNERS GO AND FINISH TOP TWO AT AMERICAS. But it'll still cost ~$1500 for those involved. And they also have to pay for the Americas trip to get the extra funding only IF they win (and if the US brings a strong team, they won't). This adds another $1000, maybe more. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 10, 2009 14:21:15 GMT -5
JL,
I never said or implied that "AC will come along later and blame the athletes". And the future of International Cross-Country is in jeopardy, not only in Canada. There are a myriad of factors involved here, and no-one individual or organization is to blame. I would suggest it is realistic, not pessimistic, to be concerned about the future of International Cross-Country, and Canada's participation there.
I agree we have a lot of young, talented runners, and my concern is that we have programs for them to be able to stay in the sport long enough to develop that talent to an optimal level.
I refer to programs that are motivational, accessible, and affordable. Such programs seem to be declining in number, and that's not a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 11, 2009 7:35:00 GMT -5
JL, I never said or implied that "AC will come along later and blame the athletes". No, Oldster wrote that though. But does AC sending mediocre teams help matters? If Canada sends our best, and we actually manage to compete (not that we have anyone who would be considered a "name" internationally, but it is important to respect the competition by sending your best), then that helps the sport, no? And I don't mean to say Genest and Bourgeois are mediocre, but they are not our best right now. They should move to Quebec, there is lots of money here! No, seriously, you are right, there is always a concern for supporting good young up-and-coming athletes, and those who have already up-and-come. But my argument is that these criteria make Cross Country as motivating an experience as possible by sending the best runners. There are a limited number of spots so accessbility is relative, but performance should be the thing that gets you on the team, not individuals backing out. As I said above, it is relatively affordable. Thank you TC for the clarification on costs, but that is still better than entirely self-funded, and I think it takes away the (already weak argument) that just because it is self-funded, there should be no restrictions. I just view this as not the end of the world. Maybe get mad at IAAF for cutting it back to every other year, but not AC for deciding to send the best team possible and making sure that if they show up at Worlds, there is as little chance as possible of getting their ass handed to them. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 11, 2009 14:19:10 GMT -5
Journeyman, Canadian long distance running, on both the men's and women's sides, is now lead by a tiny number of athletes who are significantly better than those coming up behind them. If they all show up at nationals, they will fill out the top six without question. In order to preserve what's left of Canadian X-C international running, they will then be asked to roll the dice on a trip to the Americas meet in the hope of maybe securing the funding for worlds for their whole teams. If they fail to place top 2 (entirely possible, should Brazil, Argentina and Colombia decide to take this seriously, never mind the US and Mexico) their involvement in X-C will amount to nationals, plus a partially self-funded trip to a single meet in an unfavourable climate for X-C running (at least for Canadian, in the winter). In the days when WXC was fully funded (and NO ONE has been able to satisfactorily explain to me how this was possible in the days when ACs total funding would have undoubtedly been less than it is now) athletes had the security of know that they would be going to Worlds, and could plan their training and racing around this goal. As valuable an exercise as X-C is for distance runners, it makes no sense for our tiny few top athletes to stake their scare dollars on this kind of gamble. The same money that could fund a trip to the Americas meet or Worlds could finance a period of warm weather or altitude training the southern U.S., which could be just as valuable an exercise as preparing for and racing World X-C. Like I said, over the years of WXC self-funding, our top guys have been forced to find alternatives to preparing for WXC in the winter, and now they are being asked to "put up or shut up" when it comes to Canadian international X-C. And mark my words, when the axe finally falls, the official explanation will be "lack of interest in the program among our top athletes." On this, I would be willing to bet real money. I don't mind you calling this cynical if you don't mind my calling your optimism delusional. We're not going anywhere unless we begin by confronting the reality of our situation. Things have gotten this bad partly through this attitude that we always have to "work with what we've got" meaning within the parameters set by AC, no matter how restrictive these become. In short, for years the stakeholders in this sport have not been sufficiently assertive in calling our governing body to account for many of the decisions it has made. This would have required real collective action at key moments, the concept of which seems utterly anathema to the culture of this sport. What we get instead is people repeatedly saying "AC knows best" and we should simply work with what we have.
Another thing: I'm really sick of people suggesting that AC has helped our athletes succeed by "setting the bar high", as it appears to be attempting to do here. Think of what the premise of this notion actually means: that the top Canadian athletes are not trying hard enough as it is. Any jackass in a position of power can throw out a set of numbers and claim to be encouraging athletes to "aim higher". In my experience, most of our top athletes are already trying very hard, making tremendous sacrifices, and generally doing very well with what they've got, and would be doing this regardless of what standards AC sets. If AC truly wanted to help make distance running better in this country it would restore full funding to World X-C, period.
|
|
