|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 12, 2009 19:10:23 GMT -5
Good post mpd. It would be interesting if a consensus from some of the fantastic posts in this thread could be put together and presented to those key people who can affect change. I believe oldster has previously put considerable effort into producing a very well-articulated letter re: self-funding xc; perhaps he can recap?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 12, 2009 20:14:30 GMT -5
Good post mpd. It would be interesting if a consensus from some of the fantastic posts in this thread could be put together and presented to those key people who can affect change. I believe oldster has previously put considerable effort into producing a very well-articulated letter re: self-funding xc; perhaps he can recap? Steve, I actually did dump all of this material (my open letter, ACs response, my analysis, etc.) into another related thread. To summarize for the benefit of mpd and others, I actually did spearhead and attempt to take complaints about ACs handling of X-C beyond the stage of message board complaining. I drafted an open letter to the AC board, which was signed by 50-some "Friends of Canadian Athletics", including probably 20-25 people with former national team experience (heck, even Brucie D. with whom I have had many principled disagreements in the past, signed it!) Among other things, the letter demanded that AC produce a clear plan for the restoration of full funding for WXC, like they informally promised they would throughout the 90s. In my analysis, I suggested that what was required to get ACs attention was more organization and political action on the part of athletes and other stakeholders, beginning with a public boycott of the self-funded WXC. Interestingly, at the time, I was in contact with a reporter for the AP, who said that such a move would be the only thing that would garner any real press attention, rather like the story a few years ago of a mother who could not afford to let her kid run on the World Youth team, which got the Royal Bank's attention, and led to them funding the whole team (anyone else remember that?). The AP journalist basically said that only public confrontation was newsworthy (like the incident that led to my letter campaign in the first place-- the bouncing of Leah Pells and, I think, Jeremy Deere from the team for not agreeing to attend the mandatory training camp, due to child care issues), and only something newsworthy would embarrass AC into taking the right action. I completely agreed, of course. The tone of ACs response to the letter-- which was, basically, thanks for your interest, but you can't do a thing to us and we both know it) made it pretty clear that only getting organized in a more systematic way could force AC to be accountable on this. To this day, their actual budget remains shrouded in mystery, enabling them to continue claiming that the abandonment of X-C (and travel funding in general, in fact) was purely a financial matter. In the end, only something like Ron is proposing-- starting a new organization and attempting to split long distance running from AC-- is going to have any effect. AC, because of the aforementioned bureaucratic pathology, is, from now on, going to continue to see distance running, and X-C in general, as a lost cause. AC can ONLY think in the short term, because its self-reproduction depends on it. We who actually believe in the potential of Canadians to hold their own against the rest of the world in this sport, and are prepared to do the work in the long term to position our runners to do so, have to attempt to take over. The only barrier to this is political will. And, people have to realize that they're not going to make any friends at AC in the meantime, which means perhaps not getting a piece of AC's action, such as funded team coaching appointments and such. If you think AC is basically giving up on distance running in this country, you have to be prepared to make a clear stand. I'm not sure the political will is there just yet, but this day must come-- or, be prepared to see distance running reduced to the level of youth soccer in this country-- hundred of thousands of kids doing it, and zero progress internationally. P.S. The only thing more futile than complaining on a message board is coming onto that same message board to tell others how futile their complaining is. The fact is, this is the electronic equivalent of the Public House. This is the new way ideas get clarified and organization initiated. |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 12, 2009 23:04:56 GMT -5
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. Hmmmmm......very interesting, and I'm going thru this thread, VERY interested to see the reaction to this statement. My initial response to this is "WHAT?" |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 12, 2009 23:11:06 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. 11/10 |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 12, 2009 23:16:54 GMT -5
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. Hmmmmm......very interesting, and I'm going thru this thread, VERY interested to see the reaction to this statement. My initial response to this is "WHAT?" That's a very moderate response, Skuj., to such a highly inaccurate statement. I am unpleasantly shocked at your restraint. the WHAT should clearly be followed with a TF?, at a bare minimum. There is absolutely no evidence that tightening standards makes athletes run faster. And certainly no evidence that our distance team is getting better, whether measured by a few top athletes, of the quality of athletes behind them. |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 12, 2009 23:20:27 GMT -5
Last question for you: Why do you think our recent improvement is due to the rediculous standards AC sets? There is no correlation between the 2, the fact that one thing has been increased and another has also increased does not mean that one caused the other to do so. Would somebody PLEASE detail this "recent improvement" for me? I'm obviously missing something/someone. |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 12, 2009 23:33:39 GMT -5
I've been waiting for someone to say something like this: 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. We need to work together, and do it as a package. Work with all the coaches and athletes, race organizers and sponsors and media folk, and create an entity that represents distance runners. All road runners, cross-country runners, and longer distance track runners should be represented by an organization that is capable of providing the support and encouragement that these thousands of athletes deserve. And that support and encouragement should be totally independent of whether we win a medal in these events in the next few years or not. We complain a lot on here about the state of distance running in Canada in general, and AC's apparent lack of interest in our sport more specifically. But I can't recall anyone offering a specific idea of how to DO something about the issue before. Oh I've heard Ron talk this talk many times before, and so have the other 7 people on TnFN that follow such threads. LOL. (I have to laugh, or I'll cry. A sport that I love dearly is dying in front of thine eyes.) 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? |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 13, 2009 9:24:58 GMT -5
Seriously, you aren't doing Steve(whose opinions I think are well thought out and I respect even when I disagree with them) any favours. To wit: 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? Follow the bouncing ball: tinyurl.com/ygfdzqfKey quote: "Only one Member from each country or territory may be affiliated to the IAAF and must abide by the rules and regulations of the IAAF." So the IAAF will only recognize one Member. What events does the IAAF encompass? Let's dig a bit deeper into that IAAF site. From www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/9589.pdf:"The IAAF is the world governing body for the sport of athletics, embracing the disciplines of track and field (indoor and outdoor), cross country running, road running and race walking in men's, women's and junior competition." They even have a suggestion for those who want to go rogue: "To work effectively within the world-wide sport of athletics it is important that the leaders and other personnel of all Member Federations have an understanding of the IAAF – its history, its structure and its programmes." Suggestion to any lawyer that takes this on-get your money up front. |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 13, 2009 12:17:09 GMT -5
Seriously, you aren't doing Steve(whose opinions I think are well thought out and I respect even when I disagree with them) any favours. Um.....I will never understand you, so I think I will just give up trying. But I'll restate that Steve's post, the one I gave 11/10, was excellent. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 13, 2009 12:42:49 GMT -5
I understand that.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 13, 2009 13:05:01 GMT -5
Journeyman, I'm a little surprised that you could agree with my characterization of the bureaucratic logic of ACs behaviour around standards and selection and then go on to suggest that higher standards have made or are making our runners go faster (never mind that the claim that we're now faster is demonstrably wrong). And, if it worked this way, why wouldn't they make them even higher-- like, only world top 10s get to run at the Olympics or WCs? I mean, if it's just a matter of throwing out a number, why not shoot for the moon?
You have to keep your eye on the ball. AC does not set the difficult and sometimes arcane standards regimes that it does in order to promote development; it sets these standards to limit team sizes to those capable of earning them what amounts to "funding points" from Sport Canada. According to this logic, one should severely restrict the number of younger runners who could benefit from championship experience down the road, because, from ACs point of view, there is no "down the road" except the end of the current budget cycle (or perhaps two). AC has to say that it standards are designed to "encourage excellence" because it can't really openly say what the game is actually all about. In the end, its standards have no effect on performance, except that they possible erode it over the long term. Do you seriously think that Gary Reed got as good as he is because AC told him he had to? As I suggested earlier, this is a huge insult to athletes of this calibre, who always train to be the best in the world, no matter what. The same goes for the other top people in this country. They have been winners almost their whole careers, and they're not going slack off just because the qualifying standards for international teams don't require them to work hard. For one thing, they have to continue to work very hard just to beat ONE ANOTHER out of these scarce spots. You only have to meet and spend some time with our top people to know how desperately they want to succeed a the highest levels, and how much they're already sacrificing to get there. I am really sick of the suggestion that what's really required to get them there is some jackass bureaucrat with a calculator. I'll say it one more time: to increase the standard of performance in this country, you have to increase the size of the pool of athletes training at the top levels; and, there is zero evidence that higher qualifying standards do this, and some evidence that have precisely the opposite effect. But why, in first place, would we expect higher standards to have this effect when that has never been their real intention?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 13, 2009 13:29:26 GMT -5
Further, in response to the claim that the complaining never goes beyond the complaining stage, when I started my open letter campaign, I intended it as the first step in the formation of a kind of "stakeholders rights" organization (Friends of Canadian Athletics) designed a vehicle for presenting our grievances with the administration of our sport. I even offer to meet with people at subsequent nationals to discuss this proposition and perhaps create the basic foundations of such an organization. As it turned out, no one at that time was interested (and by no one I mean not one other person) in taking this next step, and I was not prepared to attempt this entirely on my own. As I wrote in my reaction to ACs letter of response, I don't think things had gotten quite bad enough at that point to spur people to action, but that the future outrages that would be sure to follow might ultimately change things in this respect. Now, I suspect that the culture of athletics and sport in general -- the basic values and world-views of the people involved-- might ultimately preclude any kind of sustained collective action. Sports has always been martial in its hierarchy, and the people in it tend to be far too deferential to constituted authority to act against it in even the mildest ways. Plus, athletes tend to be very bad at the solidarity thing, if they even get the concept most of the time. The result is that governing bodies tend to run amok, even to the point of risking the ruination of the sport they administer (and extreme case being the South African Athletics Associations' behaviour around the Castor Semenya thing, and our own federations gross negligence around the Charlie Francis/Mazda Optimists/Ben Johnson thing). I'm not about to give up, of course, but the lack of understanding of the basics of democratic organization and action in sport is sometimes pretty depressing. You might even say we're getting what we deserve when AC does what it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 13, 2009 13:31:25 GMT -5
Good point, and I think that if the Americas meet were the end of the road, then perhaps a deeper pool would be justified. But if the goal is WXC, then that has to remain in the picture. I don't get it. Rather than leaping all the way to WXC, you said runners have to develop step by step. Now you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed to go to the intermediate step because the ultimate goal is still beyond their abilities? It depends on the purpose of the program. If the purpose is high performance, then WXC is the goal. If the purpose is development, then Americas should be the goal. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 13, 2009 13:32:26 GMT -5
Keeping up with this thread is a full time job. I love it --- nice going, guys ! I think this topic, and related issues, are worth it - We are talking about the essence of the future of Canadian distance running, imo. It' difficult to know how to focus perspectives, as there are so many interesting sub-themes here. But how about this one, just to get some people fired up. It seems that events that are 1500 metres or longer on the track, and the roads, and over the country are not worthy of much consideration at the moment. All the "own the podium" and "road to excellence" programs SEEM to me to be very narrowly focused on immediate results, and have no regard for longer developmental concerns that are especially important to endurance athletes. 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. We need to work together, and do it as a package. Work with all the coaches and athletes, race organizers and sponsors and media folk, and create an entity that represents distance runners. All road runners, cross-country runners, and longer distance track runners should be represented by an organization that is capable of providing the support and encouragement that these thousands of athletes deserve. And that support and encouragement should be totally independent of whether we win a medal in these events in the next few years or not. Obviously, the connection with the road races/runs would be crucial to this mission, as that is where a lot of the numbers and $$$ and media attention will flow from. For instance, the tens of thousands of runners who take part in the Royal Victoria Marathon weekend in the Fall, and in the Times Colonist 10K in the Spring are all part of the big picture that we need to paint. In fact, many thousands of $$$ have gone into the elite part of our sport from these events over the past couple of decades. And that's just in one City, where only about 1 in every 100 Canadians live. So let AC and government partners become a sprint/jump/throw organization, and let's take the rest of the sport by storm. I wonder which one the shoe companies and other corporate sponsors will support  Now there is some positive thinking at least. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 13, 2009 14:07:54 GMT -5
Journeyman, I'm a little surprised that you could agree with my characterization of the bureaucratic logic of ACs behaviour around standards and selection and then go on to suggest that higher standards have made or are making our runners go faster I am a complex human being, capable of holding different opinions in my head simultaneously. It seems to me we are faster. I will post as an example all the 5000m men's times under 14min from 2004 to 2008 and see where we are at. I haven't looked them up yet, so it could be that I am wrong. Come on, Steve. Obviously there is a middle ground, a standard that will stimulate, but still be achievable. Actually, if you think about it, given AC's policy motivations, that we both agree on, the fact that the standards have been achieved to the extent that they have shows at least SOME willingness to support not only the podium threats. This is definitely part of the motivation. It must be, in order to keep funding. Unless you think that it is all a ruse and that if AC spent their money on a broader development mandate, that Sport Canada would not have the guts to cut funding from track and field, which is, at least in Olympic years, a marquee sport. That would not be a bad argument: instead of you challenging AC's authority, challenge them to play chicken with Sport Canada. I'm being sincere, maybe that would work. That's probably an exaggeration, although administrators have been known to think this. That said, if those young runners win medals, then it IS beneficial. Of course not. But national standards and team selection MUST be important somehow, or we wouldn't be arguing about it. You wouldn't need to say WXC is important for development because all those XC runners would just keep training for the love of it. They wouldn't need the WXC carrot. So pick a side--you can't have it both ways. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that someone has to decide on the standards, and you count discount their importance to athletes entirely. If every athlete were completely inwardly motivated, we wouldn't even need competition...we'd all just run our hearts out for the pure joy of it. I'm not saying they are just standard-chasers, only motivated by that, but don't pretend like it doesn't matter at all. The effect of the standards doesn't have to reflect only the intention. And I don't think it is fair to say that the budget recapture motivation is the ONLY reason for it. There are many factors involved. I think your point of view on this is a bit blinded, Steve. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 13, 2009 14:08:03 GMT -5
As it turned out, no one at that time was interested (and by no one I mean not one other person) in taking this next step,... Well, maybe that says the collective will is that the status quo is OK? Personally, I'm in favour of hard standards for the top level competitions, so I think AC has it (mostly) right on that count. I'm maybe a little more ambivalent about the self-funding issue. Here is where, I think, if we don't want our top athletes to have to fund these trips themselves, that our community could rally behind the cause and find a way to fund them, through some sort of focussed fund raising. I know I've contributed to charities backing our top athletes before, and would be happy to do so again. I realize Ron or oldster's dreams of usurping AC authority have no hold in reality, but that doesn't mean there's no way for this community to get behind athlete development. If it really wanted to. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 13, 2009 14:19:07 GMT -5
2004 (Olympic year, traditionally quite deep because of many people chasing standards--9 guys, lots of performances)
13:26.57 Paul Morrison QU 80 7h3 MtSR Walnut CA 16 Apr
13:31.01 Reid Coolsaet ON 79 4b Heusden BEL 31 Jul
13:32.40 Morrison P 15 San Sebastian ESP 03 Jul
13:34.47 Morrison P 14 Met Vill d’Ascq FRA 26 Jun
13:35.09 Morrison P 1 Victoria 11 Jun
13:36.48 Ryan McKenzie ON 78 5 Victoria 11 Jun
13:37.12 Jeff Schiebler BC 73 9 Jord Stanford 30 May
13:37.81 Schiebler 4 Kumanoto JAP 11 Apr
13:41.03 Schiebler 3r1 Sinv Stanford CA 26 Mar
13:41.72 Mathew Kerr ON 76 18r1 MtSR Walnut CA 16 Apr
13:42.88 McKenzie 1 Hamilton 25 May
13:43.50 Coolsaet 11 Victoria 11 Jun
13:45.21 Schiebler 9 Niigata JAP 26 Sep
13:45.50 Simon Bairu SK 83 4 OreG Eugene OR 24 Apr
13:45.52 Coolsaet 1 Chps Victoria 09 Jul
13:47.97 Morrison 2 Chps Victoria 09 Jul
13:47.98 Matt Johnston BC 78 6 OreG Eugene OR 24 Apr
13:48.44 Mark Bomba BC 69 3 Chps Victoria 09 Jul
13:52.17 McKenzie 4 Chps Victoria 09 Jul
13:52.64 Coolsaet 4 Brasschaat BEL 07 Aug
13:55.91 Will McComb BC 80 22a CarD Stanford 30 Apr
13:56.55 McComb 2 Rrel Raleigh NC 26 Mar
13:57.70 McKenzie 1 Gina Hillsdale MI 24 Apr
13:59.34 Kerr 25a CarD Stanford CA 30 Apr
2005 (1st year of quadrennial, traditionally quite low--8 different guys)
13:23.30 Reid Coolsaet ON 79 10 NorU London(CP) Jul 22
13:27.29 Kevin Sullivan ON 74 4 MSac Walnut CA Apr 15
13:33.05 Kurt Benninger ON 85 1 StanfD Stanford CA Mar 25
13:38.76 Coolsaet 5 JorD Stanford May 30
13:39.90 Coolsaet 2 FISU Izmir Turkey Aug 19
13:41.09 Paul Morrison QU 80 8 Roverto ITA Aug 31
13:41.83 Eric Gillis ON 80 7 b Heusden BEL Jul 23
13:42.94 Coolsaet 2 Victoria Jun10
13:43.72 Simon Bairu SK 83 12 MSac Walnut CA Apr 15
13:47.09 Gillis 6 Crystal Palace GBR Aug 06
13:51.18 Jeff Schiebler BC 73 10ra Shibetsu JAP Jun 25
13:53.15 Coolsaet 14h1 WC Helsinki FIN Aug 11
13:55.33 Benninger 3 Victoria Jun 10
13:58.50 Jean-Claude Nduwingoma QU 88?? 1 CG Regina Aug 15
2006 (8 different guys, no change from 2005)
13:36.28 Simon Bairu SK 83 13b Heusden BEL Jul 22
13:36.54 Paul Morrison QU 80 11 Roverto ITA Aug 30
13:38.46 Ryan McKenzie ON 78 1 Ninove BEL Jul 29
13:43.64 Reid Coolsaet ON 79 13 Roverto ITA Aug 30
13:43.81 McKenzie 7a Card Stanford CA Apr 30
13:48.86 Coolsaet 12 NorU London(CP) Jul 21
13:49.94 Coolsaet 1 CanC Ottawa Aug 04
13:49.94 Morrison 2 CanC Ottawa Aug 04
13:52.77 Eric Gillis ON 80 2 London ON Jun 28
13:54.96 Morrison 1r1 Flanders FRA Aug 26
13:55.54 Kurt Benninger ON 85 7a ORInv Eugene OR Apr 21
13:56.12 Jerry Ziak BC 76 3 CanC Ottawa Aug 04
13:58.04 Ziak 4 Flanders FRA Aug 26
13:58.64 Mathew Kerr AB 76 8 VicI Victoria Jun 11
13:58.93 Gillis 7 Ninove BEL Jul 29
2007 (10 guys)
13:19.27 Kevin Sullivan ON 74 4 MtSac Walnut Apr 15
13:21.53 Reid Coolsaet ON 79 4b KBC-Nacht Heusden BEL Jul 28
13:22.39 Paul Morrison QC 80 5b KBC-Nacht Heusden Bel Jul 28
13:25.91 Simon Bairu SK 83 8rb KBC-Nacht Heusden BEL Jul 28
13:29.94 Coolsaet 2 Aarhus DEN Jun 29
13:31.89 Morrrison QC 80 8 Flanders Brasschaat BEL Jul 21
13:34.55 Coolsaet 1 CanC Windsor Jul 15
13:35.56 Ryan McKenzie ON 78 5 Jordan Stanford Apr 29
13:35.68 Morrison 6 Eugene OR May 26
13:36.03 Eric Gillis ON 80 11 Flanders Braasschat BEL Jul 21
13:40.97 Kip Kangogo AB 79 2 CanC Windsor Jul 15
13.41.47 Morrison 13 Jordan Stanford Apr 29
13:42.62 Gillis 12 Eugene OR May 26
13:43.19 Nate Brannen ON 82 1r1 Inv Palo Alto Mar 31
13:43.55 Morrison 3 CanC Windsor Jul 15
13:45.87 Kip Kangogo AB 79 3 VicHP Victoria Jun 08
13:47.14 Bairu 4r1 Inv Palo Alto Mar 31
13:50.89 Coolsaet 8 Reebok New York City Jun 02
13:57.03 Geoff Kerr AB 84 1 Inv Eugene OR May 06
13:59.64 Mark Steeds ON 86 2 PennR Philadelphia Apr 26
2008 (sorry for the formatting, it did not copy as well--5 individuals, this is pretty bad)
13:36.88
Eric Gillis
13:39.50
Ryan Mckenzie
13:42.14
Ryan Mckenzie
13:42.32
Ryan McKenzie
13:46.75
Simon Bairu
13:52.89&
Mark Steeds
13:55.65
Eric Gillis
13:56.18
Mark Steeds
13:57.52
Mark Steeds
13:59.68
Taylor Milne
2009 (formatting: same--9 guys)
13:30.27
Kurt Benninger
13:31.30
Kevin Sullivan
13:32.31
Kurt Benninger
13:39.23
Simon Bairu
13:40.21
Eric Gillis
13:40.33
Robin Watson
13:45.10
Eric Gillis
13:46.85
Mark Steeds
13:47.75
Taylor Milne
13:49.45
Eric Gillis
13:51.04
Eric Gillis
13:54.42
Matt Leeder
13:54.92
Kyle Boorsma
13:57.23
Kyle Boorsma
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 13, 2009 14:33:03 GMT -5
Ok, so I realise that the data set I have presented is not complete in any way (I picked one event and an arbitrary cut off), but it gives us a good idea. There seems to be a clear decline in the number of performances in the last quadrennial, which might very well be a result of tough standards. That said, there was a pretty serious spike in 2007 (world championship year, not an Olympic year), perhaps as a result of athletes shooting for that standard. I'm not convinced these numbers make anyone's case either way, but of course there is no way to connect the performances to the standards anyway, so I am just playing your game I guess by posting them. Anyway, Oldster, I am not wrong in what I said, though I may not be exactly right. Neither are you.
I am pretty sure that this information can be taken and spun whichever way you like, so I'm not sure why I bothered to do it all, but I would say that I'm at least encouraged by the positive ideas that have been flowing in the last few posts.
While I agree that complaining on a message board may be futile (as is, yes, telling others that their complaints are futile, which I don't think I have done--I've just said the complaints are misplaced), I think some of you may be missing what is going on outside of the message board, as a result of this discussion. Not surprisingly, a few people who agree with my take on this don't feel comfortable spending their time here to be criticised. Me, I have tax law to procrastinate, so I'm fine with it. But don't get the impression that the prevailing feeling in our community is anti-AC, or even anti-these particular criteria. It's not.
Back to positive ideas: I don't think a coup d'etat is the way to go. As SI points out, it is pretty much pointless from a legal point of view. That said, an organization that has as its goal to support distance running events, if it were to be created and successful at raising funds, could work with AC to help fund XC etc. If those who create it are bitter and angry at the governing body, I'm pretty sure AC won't be in the mood to accept the help. That sounds petty, but it is human nature. More positive energy is what is needed.
Mountain running would be happy to join such a group, and I'd be happy to share my sponsorship successes...if I had any...it is a tough situation out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 13, 2009 15:32:23 GMT -5
I would like the answer to a simple question. 10 Canadians broke 2:50 at the Toronto Marathon in 2009. Close to 150 did in 1982-this included women, children and handicapped people. We all agree that the pool of elite, sub elite, sub sub elite and sub sub sub elite(which is what I would consider 2:50 to be) has to expanded. How would ANYTHING done by(or even within the power of) AC get more 2:50 runners out training?
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 13, 2009 18:24:06 GMT -5
SI, here's my attempt to answer your question indirectly. Imagine there's a lake that, several decades ago, had 1,000 fish in it. Now, thanks to development, pollution, invasive species, fishing, climate change, acidification, and a bunch of other big trends, it only has 100 fish left. The town council is considering a motion to allow dynamite fishing in the lake. You might say that nothing the town council does either way will restore the level of fish to its former glory, so it doesn't matter what it decides. But to others, it might seem better to have 100 fish than 10 fish, and better still to try to get that number up to 150 -- even though that's still far from 1,000.
Before we get mired in a debate about marine ecosystem dynamics, let me translate. Yes, there are big societal trends that have transformed the athletic landscape since 1982. No, Athletics Canada can't magically reverse those trends. However, the decisions it takes today have real impacts on the whether the CURRENT levels of performance and participation go up or down. Enact a policy that causes 20 guys who run between 30:00 and 32:00 to quit rather than keep training, and you have 20 fewer guys at that level.
We can certainly debate whether the NACAC XC championships is an appropriate tool to help keep a few dozen 30:30 guys interested in the sport. I recognize that lots of people don't think that's how national teams should be used. Personally, when we have so few tools available in the context of this broader societal slide, I figure we should use whatever tools we have. Keeping the team there as an incentive may only make an infinitesimal positive contribution -- but I completely fail to see how effectively canceling the team makes anything but a negative contribution.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 13, 2009 18:53:53 GMT -5
JL,
You seem to be "dancing" a bit on this topic. I know you need to preserve your relationship with AC on the Mountain Running gig, and that's kewl.
But when you start to talk about distance running in Canada improving, I don't get the metrics at all.
We had zero (0) women qualify for the Worlds (according to AC) in the 800/1500/5000/10000/steeple., and only Tara ready to go in the Marathon.
We had Gary, Nate, and Rob plus the Marathon guys, but no other representatives in the distance events, thus no-one in the 5000 and 10000, and only 1 in the other events.
That is not moving in the right direction, imo.
We want to have 3 or more qualified runners in every event from 800 m. through the Marathon, both Men and Women. 12 events - 36 runners (plus more when Marathon goes to 4 or 5 per team). How do we get there from here ? Raising standards is not the answer, we need to figure out a way to increase the incentives for more athletes, not less.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 13, 2009 18:55:22 GMT -5
Enact a policy that causes 20 guys who run between 30:00 and 32:00 to quit rather than keep training, and you have 20 fewer guys at that level. If they quit because they can't go to WXC because they finished 10th at nationals, it seems to me the problem is not with AC. If the athletes we are talking about are half as bit as into cross country as you guys, they are not going to quit because of some tough standards. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 13, 2009 19:11:42 GMT -5
If the athletes we are talking about are half as bit as into cross country as you guys, they are not going to quit because of some tough standards. Actually, when I was 24 and coming off a two-year knee injury, the single most important factor in my decision to resume serious training and turn down a job that would have effectively meant giving up elite aspirations was the belief that a spot on the WXC team was attainable. I don't think the fact that my choices were influenced by the presence of a realistic incentive represents a character flaw. And to clarify what people are upset about (or at least I am): it's not that a 10th place guy doesn't get to go to worlds, it's that there may be NO team sent. Those are two very distinct points, though they're linked by the selection criteria. It's one thing to have a hard standard, it's another to have a mirage-like standard that disappears completely just when you think you've done what's needed. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 13, 2009 19:12:17 GMT -5
Keeping the team there as an incentive may only make an infinitesimal positive contribution -- but I completely fail to see how effectively canceling the team makes anything but a negative contribution. I am actually a bit agnostic on the issue. I am basically taking an issue with the numbers getting thrown around. All road runners, cross-country runners, and longer distance track runners should be represented by an organization that is capable of providing the support and encouragement that these thousands of athletes deserve.... For instance, the tens of thousands of runners who take part in the Royal Victoria Marathon weekend in the Fall, and in the Times Colonist 10K in the Spring are all part of the big picture that we need to paint. I don't see the thousands of runners unless you want to talk about those 2:50 people and RVM makes that argument. The results from the tens of thousands of runners drops to provincial level(and that is being charitable) pretty darn fast. I understand what you are saying but nothing that AC does is ever going to get us back to the so called "glory days" when people were insane enough(at least in the marathon) to try to run a 2:20 just for their own personal satisfaction. I just get irritated when the blame for that gets laid at the feet of AC. Not to mention the fact that the lake still has 1000 fish in it. They just choose to swim around more slowly. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 13, 2009 19:16:04 GMT -5
Actually, when I was 24 and coming off a two-year knee injury, the single most important factor in my decision to resume serious training and turn down a job that would have effectively meant giving up elite aspirations was the belief that a spot on the WXC team was attainable. It would have been interesting to see how things would have unfolded without that injury. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 13, 2009 20:08:00 GMT -5
SI,
I don't think the blame is on AC at all....They are between a rock and a hard place.
But I do think those of us who still care do not want to differentiate between the very fast times that are possible at the front end, and the tens of thousands who are out there for their own reasons. If we can get past that "divide", we all win.
A million years ago, the Sun Run created a lot of support and money, some of which started up the Harry Jerome Track Classic and associated West Coast International Meets. The same model led to the Times Colonist 10K, with lots of money going to the Victoria International Track Classic, and other local High Performance events. Same with the RVM.
The tens of thousands of "slow runners/walkers" can contribute to the faster runners, and do so, with a good model to start from. Not to mention the fact that the amount of merchandise sold by running companies, and hotels/restaurants/etc. that are now big supporters of running events, and the fact that the most read newspaper articles over the last few days are based on a running event, and so on.....How can this be bad for us?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 13, 2009 20:09:40 GMT -5
Enact a policy that causes 20 guys who run between 30:00 and 32:00 to quit rather than keep training, and you have 20 fewer guys at that level. If they quit because they can't go to WXC because they finished 10th at nationals, it seems to me the problem is not with AC. If the athletes we are talking about are half as bit as into cross country as you guys, they are not going to quit because of some tough standards. O.K., Journeyman, now I'm starting to lose my patience. Hutch basically nails the issue with his eloquent and thoughtful post, and you choose to take the most pettyfoggingly narrow view imaginable. What would you rather have, 10 talented guys with lots of character and moral fibre training away, or maybe 100 equally talented guys who perhaps need a little clear incentive in order to stick with it? We're not engaged in an endeavour to encourage character and moral fibre for their own sake; we're trying to ensure that the sport doesn't die. Who gives a shit why talented people choose to continue, as long as they do? And full funding for WXC is, in the larger scheme, a very small price to pay to encourage even a few dozen more talented post-collegians to continue. Our depth at the top is so razor thin that if even 10 or 20 more good post-collegians could be persuaded in whatever way to keep it going we could almost double the number of people at the top! Let's quit beating around the bush. AC is going with this current gambit because it can't lose. X-C has probably become more trouble than it's worth for the organization, and this approach will enable it to effectively kill the program while looking like what they're really doing is just "encouraging excellence", like they always do. And, if athletes refuse to respond to these clever inducements to excellence, they can then blame said athletes for the demise of the program. Talk about win-win! As for all the people you know who are supportive of this current program, yet unwilling to speak out in favour on here, I know just as many who have serious problems with it (like, the B.C. Athletics Federation). Stay tuned on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 13, 2009 21:19:55 GMT -5
JL, You seem to be "dancing" a bit on this topic. I know you need to preserve your relationship with AC on the Mountain Running gig, and that's kewl. I'm not dancing. I don't need to preserve anything. If I wanted to be critical, I would be. I just don't see a reason to be with respect to the WXC criteria. I am just willing to admit that there are two sides to the story, that's all. I don't believe it is all bad, nor do I think it is all good. Complex thinking, hmm. As for my list, you are right, as I pointed out it's a limited sample. Tell me what the correct sample is, and show how it demonstrates a link between standards and performance, and/or funding and performance. I don't deny that funding can help, but I also think that tougher standards can help too. I don't see any evidence (wow I'm starting to sound like PQ) that the standards are the cause for the decline you are talking about. I also think we are looking at different time frames. I'm thinking the last 4-5 years. Maybe you are looking at a larger range? |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 13, 2009 21:28:08 GMT -5
O.K., Journeyman, now I'm starting to lose my patience. Hutch basically nails the issue with his eloquent and thoughtful post, and you choose to take the most pettyfoggingly narrow view imaginable. In the end, its standards have no effect on performance, except that they possible erode it over the long term. Do you seriously think that Gary Reed got as good as he is because AC told him he had to? As I suggested earlier, this is a huge insult to athletes of this calibre, who always train to be the best in the world, no matter what. Apparently not. But that's ok. My point is that standard chasing IS ONE PART of motivation. I disagree with anyone who says that athletes are ONLY standard chasers, or ONLY intrinsically motivated. You are just chasing your tail now, basically because you seem to want to find fault. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 13, 2009 21:30:53 GMT -5
If the athletes we are talking about are half as bit as into cross country as you guys, they are not going to quit because of some tough standards. Actually, when I was 24 and coming off a two-year knee injury, the single most important factor in my decision to resume serious training and turn down a job that would have effectively meant giving up elite aspirations was the belief that a spot on the WXC team was attainable. I don't think the fact that my choices were influenced by the presence of a realistic incentive represents a character flaw. And to clarify what people are upset about (or at least I am): it's not that a 10th place guy doesn't get to go to worlds, it's that there may be NO team sent. Those are two very distinct points, though they're linked by the selection criteria. It's one thing to have a hard standard, it's another to have a mirage-like standard that disappears completely just when you think you've done what's needed. There is a team standard. Someone can be good enough to make the Canadian soccer team, but if the soccer team doesn't qualify, they don't go to the World Cup. Obviously it is not a direct analogy, but that's what it is about: individuals who may or may not make the team take a back seat to the concept of the team. |
|
