|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 13, 2009 21:54:03 GMT -5
Journeyman, I don't want to find fault, I do find fault, and it's ample. So do many others in this thread, and beyond. In fact, I think AC will be forced to climb down on this. Care to bet?
And you still haven't explained how you can both accept my characterization of ACs basic operational logic, yet still trust that it has the best interests of the Canadian X-C program at heart-- a program that contributes not one whit to its budgetary bottom line, and must be a headache to boot-- when it comes to the setting of qualifying and funding criteria. No one knows exactly what went on, either consciously or subconsciously, when this new plan was hatched, but don't you think my characterization of the intention of this program-- i.e. to effectively kill Canadian international X-C while dumping the blame onto Canadian athletes for "failing to support it" -- stands to reason, given the nature of bureaucratic structures within which it operates? Or, do you actually think Canadian athletes really will be to blame if Canada stops sending teams to WXC, or any other international meet? And, if so, do you think AC bears any blame at all for de-funding the program for the last 18 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 13, 2009 22:16:33 GMT -5
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. I realize you're not going to change your mind, but for the record, there's a difference between a team standard that is measured against the performance of other teams (i.e. soccer), and a team standard that has absolutely no objective basis. These criteria don't ask "How good is the team?" or "How will it fare against the competition at NACAC?" They just run some algebra that in some cases states there will be no team. Imagine for a moment that Brannen, Milne and Sully show up at nationals this year and place in the top eight. Entirely possible, right? None of them want to go to NACAC, so there's no team. Now imagine that the Mulligan Fairy allows us rewind time and cancel Brannen's and Sully's flight and unplug Milne's alarm clock. Everyone else places the same -- let's say it's Bairu, Coolsaet, Wykes, Watson, Gillis and Smith, for the sake of argument, and they all want to go to NACAC. What a fantastic team! It's our "A" team! They'll be competitive at NACAC! How wonderful! So how does it make sense to have criteria that make sending a team composed of Bairu, Coolsaet, Wykes, Watson, Gillis and Smith dependent on whether some milers decide to run nationals? Sure, the team might be even better with Sully on it -- but that's true even if Sully isn't at nationals. This is my point about an arbitrary standard: we're judging whether or not to send a team based on who's NOT on it rather than who's on it. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 13, 2009 22:30:41 GMT -5
JL,
Here's an example of complex thinking...hmmm...
Back in the day, a bunch of us decided that, if we were going to select the best possible
WXC team for Canada, then it should not be selected in November.
So, we decided to hold a Trials in the early Spring.
There were various conflict possibilities, including the CI Indoor Meets and Ekiden Relays (that was in the days when Canadian teams were invited/welcome/funded).
We came upon the first weekend of February, decided on Victoria as the most likely place to have reasonable conditions at that time, and proceeded with that plan.
For about a dozen years, plus or minus, the Canadian team for the World Cross Country Championships was selected from a Trials competition, hosted in Canada, about 6 to 7 weeks ahead of the Championships. Wow...what a concept! Surprise - it worked!
And it worked not only for the 9 + 6 + 6 + 6 that were selected, but for the rest of the athletes and the system that put serious value on trying to be in top aerobic shape on the first weekend of February. Nothing magic here, just good planning!
By the way, you made an earlier comment about Indoor season, and this plan allowed athletes to run Conference and CI'S for their school, and use those races as good sharpening races towards their performance at World XC. Several of our best-ever World performances were achieved by athletes using the CI Meets to prepare.
That was then, this is now, I get that. But I can tell you that dozens of our top distance runners, based on the all-time rankings from AC, were there every February running cross-country at a top National level, and whether they made the team, and/or ran well at the Worlds, this was a very important part of their development. In another post, I will try and capture all the names that I can find on my OLD videotape collection.
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 13, 2009 22:53:31 GMT -5
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? Is it wishful thinking for us to think that AC would just let it go?
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 13, 2009 23:12:27 GMT -5
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. I just set up a poll. If it turns out that the majority of TNF'ers are in favour of the standards or don't care, I'll shut up. |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 13, 2009 23:58:55 GMT -5
JL, Here's an example of complex thinking...hmmm... Back in the day, a bunch of us decided that, if we were going to select the best possible WXC team for Canada, then it should not be selected in November. So, we decided to hold a Trials in the early Spring. There were various conflict possibilities, including the CI Indoor Meets and Ekiden Relays (that was in the days when Canadian teams were invited/welcome/funded). We came upon the first weekend of February, decided on Victoria as the most likely place to have reasonable conditions at that time, and proceeded with that plan. For about a dozen years, plus or minus, the Canadian team for the World Cross Country Championships was selected from a Trials competition, hosted in Canada, about 6 to 7 weeks ahead of the Championships. Wow...what a concept! Surprise - it worked! And it worked not only for the 9 + 6 + 6 + 6 that were selected, but for the rest of the athletes and the system that put serious value on trying to be in top aerobic shape on the first weekend of February. Nothing magic here, just good planning! By the way, you made an earlier comment about Indoor season, and this plan allowed athletes to run Conference and CI'S for their school, and use those races as good sharpening races towards their performance at World XC. Several of our best-ever World performances were achieved by athletes using the CI Meets to prepare. That was then, this is now, I get that. But I can tell you that dozens of our top distance runners, based on the all-time rankings from AC, were there every February running cross-country at a top National level, and whether they made the team, and/or ran well at the Worlds, this was a very important part of their development. In another post, I will try and capture all the names that I can find on my OLD videotape collection. Oh Man, I jogged that old Beacon Hill 2k loop the other day.....there's a trail of sorts still there. Ah the memories.....the radio, as I was driving to it.....announcing all the stars etc.....the hype.......the crowds.....the atmosphere.......the importance....... Sorry, I lost myself there..... I think I partook in 83, 85, 91.....damn, I was 38:09 in 91? Only 3min behind Boyd? LOL! This event was fucking HUGE. |
|
bcg
Junior Member
Posts: 65 
|
Post by bcg on Oct 14, 2009 0:48:23 GMT -5
Here`s my simplistic take on standards. In terms of the notion that by simply toughening the standards that Canadian athletes will then work/train that much harder and then achieve a higher level of performance, I think that this is false. I think that the biggest determining factor in how well Canada does at an international level in running is having a large enough quantity of runners at the base level, and keeping them in the sport long enough. If the pyramid is big enough and the coaching is good enough then inevitably a certain number of world elites emerge at the top of this pyramid. However because runners don`t generally peak until their late twenties or later they have to continue training extremely hard and sacrifice other aspects of their life (especially financial) for a long time. To have a high number of people willing to do so you need various carrots in place, such as the possibility of the honour of competing for your country. If the standards to compete for Canada seem way too out of reach for too many people than a high percentage of these athletes will drop out of the sport after college, never realizing their true potential. If on the other hand the standard is more reasonable then a lot more people are willing to keep working their butts off training because they think the standard is within their reach. You then have a lot more athletes competing for the few international team spots and the performance levels achieved end up going higher overall because you have a lot of athletes battling each other to get a spot on the teams. In my mind the only justification for raising the standards to ridiculously high levels is if the country can simply not afford to send many people- WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE FOR ONE OF THE RICHEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD- CANADA!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 14, 2009 6:21:36 GMT -5
JL, Here's an example of complex thinking...hmmm... Back in the day, a bunch of us decided that, if we were going to select the best possible WXC team for Canada, then it should not be selected in November. So, we decided to hold a Trials in the early Spring. There were various conflict possibilities, including the CI Indoor Meets and Ekiden Relays (that was in the days when Canadian teams were invited/welcome/funded). We came upon the first weekend of February, decided on Victoria as the most likely place to have reasonable conditions at that time, and proceeded with that plan. For about a dozen years, plus or minus, the Canadian team for the World Cross Country Championships was selected from a Trials competition, hosted in Canada, about 6 to 7 weeks ahead of the Championships. Wow...what a concept! Surprise - it worked! And it worked not only for the 9 + 6 + 6 + 6 that were selected, but for the rest of the athletes and the system that put serious value on trying to be in top aerobic shape on the first weekend of February. Nothing magic here, just good planning! By the way, you made an earlier comment about Indoor season, and this plan allowed athletes to run Conference and CI'S for their school, and use those races as good sharpening races towards their performance at World XC. Several of our best-ever World performances were achieved by athletes using the CI Meets to prepare. That was then, this is now, I get that. But I can tell you that dozens of our top distance runners, based on the all-time rankings from AC, were there every February running cross-country at a top National level, and whether they made the team, and/or ran well at the Worlds, this was a very important part of their development. In another post, I will try and capture all the names that I can find on my OLD videotape collection. Ron: I agree with everything you've said here. It would be a much better way of selecting a team and allow for a stronger team. That said, if the team were selected in February, I don't see why it would also not be possible to select only the best. The two are separate issues. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 14, 2009 6:30:10 GMT -5
Journeyman, I don't want to find fault, I do find fault, and it's ample. So do many others in this thread, and beyond. In fact, I think AC will be forced to climb down on this. Care to bet? Why does everyone want me to bet? I doubt AC will climb down, but you never know. I would argue that succumbing to message board pressure is a louder death knell for an organization than not sending a team to WXC because the team is not strong enough. But perhaps it will be the result of the outside pressure you were refering to earlier. It's not that hard to conceive of, really. There are existing budget pressures. There are best interests of XC. There are two (and probably more) factors to consider in making organizational decisions. Both are taken into account. It seems to be (judging from the response here) the best kind of compromise: the kind that leaves everyone mad. You still haven't explained how you reconcile the fact that elite athletes don't chase standards, they strive to be the best they can be regardless, but we need a WXC program to promote development. That seems like more of a contradiction to me. Those are not the only two choices. No, athletes won't be to blame. Yes, AC bears some blame, but there are other factors. The economy is a more recent one (sponsorship is extermely hard to come by). The funding issues AC has are not related to merely poor budgeting on their part, but a lack of money coming down the tube from Sport Canada. Finally, I highly doubt that anyone at AC is actively trying to kill the XC program. Do you know those people at all? That is just as insulting as suggesting that athletes are to blame. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 14, 2009 6:31:37 GMT -5
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? Is it wishful thinking for us to think that AC would just let it go? That might be possible, but I think AC views the program as being to valuable to let go. I realise that it doesn't seem that way based on the characterizations of AC's motives on this board, but if you actually asked the people involved, I think you would find they are too attached to it to let that happen. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 14, 2009 8:22:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 14, 2009 8:49:26 GMT -5
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. I realize you're not going to change your mind, but for the record, there's a difference between a team standard that is measured against the performance of other teams (i.e. soccer), and a team standard that has absolutely no objective basis. These criteria don't ask "How good is the team?" or "How will it fare against the competition at NACAC?" They just run some algebra that in some cases states there will be no team. Imagine for a moment that Brannen, Milne and Sully show up at nationals this year and place in the top eight. Entirely possible, right? None of them want to go to NACAC, so there's no team. Now imagine that the Mulligan Fairy allows us rewind time and cancel Brannen's and Sully's flight and unplug Milne's alarm clock. Everyone else places the same -- let's say it's Bairu, Coolsaet, Wykes, Watson, Gillis and Smith, for the sake of argument, and they all want to go to NACAC. What a fantastic team! It's our "A" team! They'll be competitive at NACAC! How wonderful! So how does it make sense to have criteria that make sending a team composed of Bairu, Coolsaet, Wykes, Watson, Gillis and Smith dependent on whether some milers decide to run nationals? Sure, the team might be even better with Sully on it -- but that's true even if Sully isn't at nationals. This is my point about an arbitrary standard: we're judging whether or not to send a team based on who's NOT on it rather than who's on it. My mind is changeable. But yeah, this would be an unfortunate turn of events. It would also be unprecedented. This would be the kind of thing that might force AC to "climb down." It's a big "what if" though. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 14, 2009 8:54:07 GMT -5
Here`s my simplistic take on standards. In terms of the notion that by simply toughening the standards that Canadian athletes will then work/train that much harder and then achieve a higher level of performance, I think that this is false. I think that the biggest determining factor in how well Canada does at an international level in running is having a large enough quantity of runners at the base level, and keeping them in the sport long enough. If the pyramid is big enough and the coaching is good enough then inevitably a certain number of world elites emerge at the top of this pyramid. However because runners don`t generally peak until their late twenties or later they have to continue training extremely hard and sacrifice other aspects of their life (especially financial) for a long time. To have a high number of people willing to do so you need various carrots in place, such as the possibility of the honour of competing for your country. If the standards to compete for Canada seem way too out of reach for too many people than a high percentage of these athletes will drop out of the sport after college, never realizing their true potential. If on the other hand the standard is more reasonable then a lot more people are willing to keep working their butts off training because they think the standard is within their reach. You then have a lot more athletes competing for the few international team spots and the performance levels achieved end up going higher overall because you have a lot of athletes battling each other to get a spot on the teams. In my mind the only justification for raising the standards to ridiculously high levels is if the country can simply not afford to send many people- WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE FOR ONE OF THE RICHEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD- CANADA!!! There are some really good points here. The development model you propose is reasonable and realistic. Tough standards play a role in it. It's a matter of balance. That said, it is not so much that the country can't afford it, but that the government allocates funds for sport through one body, which then distributes it to the individual sporting bodies. Other money comes through sponsorship, and the lack of funds there is simply due to lack of will and lack of opportunity. XC is not a valuable sponsorship commodity. You need a group like the Cameron family that Moulton described, who have a specific interest in the sport. There is no divine right to XC funding. We are a rich country, but resources are still limited. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 14, 2009 9:00:33 GMT -5
I just set up a poll. If it turns out that the majority of TNF'ers are in favour of the standards or don't care, I'll shut up. I don't think yo should shut up one way or another. Voice your opinion or it won't be heard. I don't really like your poll however. I'm in favour of tough standards for Worlds, but not sure I like that they've set the same standards for Trinidad and Tobago. Also, my reasons for agreeing with AC's tough standards are, I think, different than journeyman's. I don't think standards influence athlete development one way or another, at least not demonstrably. But I happen to think that, for Worlds and Olympics, we should only send athletes who stand a chance of being reasonably competitive. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 14, 2009 10:21:29 GMT -5
I just set up a poll. If it turns out that the majority of TNF'ers are in favour of the standards or don't care, I'll shut up. I don't think yo should shut up one way or another. Voice your opinion or it won't be heard. I don't really like your poll however. I'm in favour of tough standards for Worlds, but not sure I like that they've set the same standards for Trinidad and Tobago. Also, my reasons for agreeing with AC's tough standards are, I think, different than journeyman's. I don't think standards influence athlete development one way or another, at least not demonstrably. But I happen to think that, for Worlds and Olympics, we should only send athletes who stand a chance of being reasonably competitive. I agree that no one should shut up. Actually, PQ, my reasons are the same as yours. The standards issue is probably unprovable, but everyone seems to be arguing that lower standards will get us better results. I don't buy that. I only put forth the higher standards are leading to good performance as a secondary argument, and I think, after looking at some stats, it is hard to prove that one either way. |
|
Kerr
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 14, 2009 12:23:24 GMT -5
I agree with PQ on the Americas vs WXC difference. If we are getting killed at WXC then maybe we need a little tougher standards. I do believe that the America's should be used as a developmental opportunity for athletes in, say, the top 16 or 20 at Nationals.
From my perspective the tougher standards and very high likelihood of a team not going is making me debate what would be a better use of funds: Go to National XC in wintery Guelph or stay at home in wintery Calgary, train through December and put that money either towards racing on the roads or indoors in February / March in the States. The $800 or so it will cost me could be put towards a few rabbited races in Seattle which will do more for me getting into meets in the summer than anything I can accomplish at Guelph.
For me, the draw in Guelph was the opportunity to have the opportunity to make a team that would offer a major (for me) goal race and motivation for aerobic development through the winter months. I am not sure that opportunity exists any more.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 14, 2009 12:27:13 GMT -5
Geoff: is it because you don't think you will finish top 8 or you don't think there will be enough guys who want to go to make up a team?
|
|
Kerr
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 14, 2009 12:29:14 GMT -5
Journeyman: That there won't be enough guys to make up a team. I am not by any means saying that top 8 is guaranteed, but I believe based on my current training that it is in the cards (I've done it before, so why not again?).
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 14, 2009 12:48:11 GMT -5
Good! In that case, maybe you should ask around, and see what the rest of the guys who might be in the top 8 are saying. I think it would be a shame for people not to go to nationals (Nationals!) as a result of a policy that is going to affect 6 people per race. I understand the $$$ issues though, for sure.
What about Jon Brown?!
|
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Oct 14, 2009 13:18:06 GMT -5
Athlete A - "So, anyone here can't go to Americas?"
Athlete B - "I can't."
Athlete C - "Me either."
Athlete D - "I can't."
Athlete E - "It's my only goal this winter and basically the only thing I've been training for this entire cycle. ... Uh... Could B, C and D not finish in the top-6 please?"
Athlete B - "Well, I'd like to try to win nationals."
Athlete C - "Me too."
Athlete A - "Well, I'd like to go to Americas too. You guys think you could just DNF in the last 400m if you are top-6?"
Athlete B - "Well, why should we even bother going to nationals if we're going to look like assholes if we try our best?"
All - (Silence)
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 14, 2009 13:18:37 GMT -5
Without re-quoting the whole post from the previous page, I think "bcg" captures many of the relevant issues. Well done ! ( I guess that means he and I agree  Now let's try and get outside the box. As I understand NACAC Cross Country, from those who have been there, it is a very low key, uninspiring experience. Certainly not enough, in my opinion, to get people to go to Nationals and pay, and then go to NACAC and pay again, and all for a less-than-thrilling race experience. What if someone in AC approached USA Track and Field and said, "Hey we notice you have the USA Individual Cross Country Championships (and XC Team Trials) in Spokane, Washington on February 13th, 2010. How would it be if we selected Canadian teams in each of the races, and raced in your Championships as guests?" Now that would be an exciting experience. And of course the first reaction would be NO WAY. But it can't hurt to ask. All they can say is NO, they can't invade us Then I think the Canadian Team should be selected as follows: A pool is created from top finishers at Fall Nationals, top finishers at CIS, and top Canadian finishers at NCAA/NAIA Championships. Then a selection methodology would have to be developed after that, which might get complicated, but at least we are working on growing "the pool". And from there, maybe we can work together and find a way to help fund the top Canadians from the February 13th Meet to the Worlds, and "presto", we have a good Cross Country program again. Some will note that this is only one weekend and one Country away from the way we used to do things, and maybe we can get there again. But we don't want to have only 10 or 12 runners show up for a race, so let's see if we can get the Americans interested and start there. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 14, 2009 20:33:40 GMT -5
I don't really like your poll however. I'm in favour of tough standards for Worlds, but not sure I like that they've set the same standards for Trinidad and Tobago. Also, my reasons for agreeing with AC's tough standards are, I think, different than journeyman's. I don't think standards influence athlete development one way or another, at least not demonstrably. But I happen to think that, for Worlds and Olympics, we should only send athletes who stand a chance of being reasonably competitive. But the standards are the same, so how can you vote in favour? |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 14, 2009 20:37:28 GMT -5
Actually, PQ, my reasons are the same as yours. The standards issue is probably unprovable, but everyone seems to be arguing that lower standards will get us better results. I don't buy that. I only put forth the higher standards are leading to good performance as a secondary argument, and I think, after looking at some stats, it is hard to prove that one either way. Who is arguing that lowering standards will give us better results? What most of us are saying is that by making standards more difficult, you are not going to improve results. In fact if you look at it, by setting the standards that AC has set, they could end up sending a much weaker team to Americas because a lot of guys like Geoff just won't bother showing up. For anyone outside of the GTA, it's not really worth your money if your goal is to represent Canada. I won't be supporting national XC champs unless I am there for business and I would like to think I am one of those guys in the top 20 who could potentially crack a national team given the old team criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 14, 2009 20:38:17 GMT -5
Good! In that case, maybe you should ask around, and see what the rest of the guys who might be in the top 8 are saying. I think it would be a shame for people not to go to nationals (Nationals!) as a result of a policy that is going to affect 6 people per race. I understand the $$$ issues though, for sure. What about Jon Brown?! A lot of guys outside of the GTA will be saying this very thing. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 14, 2009 20:39:24 GMT -5
Within this thread, and many others, we discuss "tough standards". We need to get back to the point where being ranked in the top 3 in Canada, or top 6 or 8 in Cross Country, is considered a tough standard. Within existing IAAF definitions, of course, but with no need to impose another level of complexity on the selection process....Especially those designed by a statistician in Ottawa...Imagine, a well-paid, fat-ass in Ottawa with a calculator, telling good Canadian runners they can't go......barf !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 14, 2009 20:39:47 GMT -5
What if someone in AC approached USA Track and Field and said, "Hey we notice you have the USA Individual Cross Country Championships (and XC Team Trials) in Spokane, Washington on February 13th, 2010. How would it be if we selected Canadian teams in each of the races, and raced in your Championships as guests?" Great idea Ron. That's what we do in mountain running (different, but still). |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 14, 2009 20:48:46 GMT -5
Journeyman, you never asked me to reconcile my claim that athletes don't chase standards AND that WXC funding is required to promoted development, and the request itself is pure sophistry worthy of the legal profession. There is nothing to reconcile. A standard is an arbitrary barrier to be overcome-- arbitrary because athletes don't, and could if they tried, train only hard enough to hit a specific time; they train as hard as they're able and let the chips fall where they may-- and WXC funding constitutes an opportunity, or an invitation, to continue in the sport. The point about WXC funding is that we need it to encourage more athletes to stay in the sport so that they might one day become the kind of athlete who can attempt a high standard. ALL athletes need a focus for their efforts, and saying so in no way contradicts my claim that athletes don't need arbitrary "standards" to induce them to be good. As BCG succinctly states, they only need opportunities appropriate to their level of development.
And a question: How do you actually know budgetary concerns are behind ACs long-time de-funding of WXC? Because they told you? Do you honestly believe that their budget is lower, or their core costs higher, than they were in the years 1977 to 1992? And remember, there were two major recessions in there. De-funding WXC has been a conscious choice; they don't have less money than before, they have simply decided to spend it elsewhere (because they realized years ago that some athletes would pay themselves to go to worlds). This can be described in terms of budgetary constraints, but only in the sense that the funding WON'T be afforded rather than that it CAN'T be afforded.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 14, 2009 20:53:05 GMT -5
And a question: How do you actually know budgetary concerns are behind ACs long-time de-funding of WXC? Because they told you? Yes I was told by an individual at AC. |
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Oct 14, 2009 21:17:21 GMT -5
And a question: How do you actually know budgetary concerns are behind ACs long-time de-funding of WXC? Because they told you? Yes I was told by an individual at AC. I have waisted a lot of time trying to keep up. I have 3 things to say. 1) If long term funding is the key issue (i don't buy it is), why, why why have restrictions of a SELF-FUNDED team?  If they don't want to give cash that is one thing, it's another to set up barriers to going if they are not also trying to help fund the team. 2) Standard are ment ONLY to restrict teams/people. They prevent universal participation. It has nothing to do with winning. People who want to win don't win because their are restrictions. Put another way, if you applied these "team" criteria to Kenya, Ethiopia or Morroco, there is a possibility they wouldn't send a team to NACAC. Even though each of these teams is easily the best in the world. Restriction wouldn't "help" them improve. 3) Oldster. Consider me on board. I am sitting here, in full and complete agreement with you. If there is anything you want to do to help improve the situation. Consider me there. You have my word. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 14, 2009 21:18:52 GMT -5
As is usual in Canada, there is a strong wind blowing from West to East, and will have a major effect on conditions in "Central" Canada.
Among the many hurdles we have to confront is the following:
There are still too many people who think of Athletics as Track and Field, and we have some in our head office who need to be reminded of the fact that Cross-Country and Road Racing are equal partners in the sport we now call Athletics.
So, when the World gets together at the Olympics or the Worlds, there are 47 events:
Within the Power/Speed envelope are 32 events = 68 %
In the Endurance arena are 10 events = 21 %
Somewhere in between are the walks and the 800 = 5 events = 11 %.
However, when one factors in the other IAAF Championships, on the road and over the country, the numbers change dramatically, not only in terms of the numbers at the World level, but in terms of the numbers who take part in the sport in Canada.
Those of us who care about the endurance events need to keep pressing that point on Athletics Canada, and impressing that point on our sponsors and media partners.
|
|
If they don't want to give cash that is one thing, it's another to set up barriers to going if they are not also trying to help fund the team.