|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 14, 2009 21:31:34 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. That's interesting. As you can probably figure, I've known people at AC for a lot longer than you have, and for years heard them accept in principle that WXC was central to our distance development plan, and promise that WXC funding would be restored ASAP. But that was between 92 (the last fully funded team) and 98, the point at which the organization became addicted to the "self-funding" option for basically ALL of our teams. THIS is why I became so pissed-off about this back when I initiated the open letter campaign: after admitting the principle and promising to bring it back, they simply stopped talking about it at all. And now this. "Affording" something is always a relative thing, unless we're talking about someone starving. There are some 5 million tax payers dollars allotted in the name of this sport, broadly speaking, and yet somehow, travel funding for national teams is no longer considered part of the core mandate of this organization-- or rather, travel funding for athletes. Full funding for team staffs (who are not, BTW, required to prove that they are among the best in the world) remains sacrosanct. This it itself ought to tell us all we need to know about the culture of this organization (and, probably, of all sports admin. in general). |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Moulton on Oct 15, 2009 0:27:22 GMT -5
Not sure if this has been proposed but what would people think about a largely self funded Americas team (with using the AGSI funds for the top athletes who go) which is sent to the Americas regardless of how far down the list they have to go. A team would only be sent to World Cross if they qualify, meaning if they win the Americas meet. This might mean we only send a junior womens team one year and only a senior mens the next. This team would be largely funded with athletes paying the rest, as they only fund the top 4 finishers on the team. An individual can also qualify for World XC by winning the Americas meet and their trip would be largely funded. My reasoning is pretty simple, the Americas meet is generally quite a bit cheaper than World Cross to go to. I think it is important for us as a country to support regional cross country. Historically the competition level and experience at NACAC has been low, this is because other countries don't compete, if we don't compete the level will be even lower. It also forces cross country athletes to prove to Athletics Canada that they deserve to go to the World Championships, which may appease the Board as I believe one of their qualms is the fact that there is no actual qualifying process for World Cross. Here is the information on funding "7.1 IAAF Quota o All Member Federations are entitled to a basic quota of one male and one female athlete o According to the results achieved in the three previous editions of the competition, the following Member Federations benefit from a higher quota as below: Men 8 ERI, ETH, GBR, KEN, MAR, UGA, USA 7 ALG, AUS, JPN, QAT 6 ESP, FRA, ITA, POR 5 BRA, CAN, RSA, RWA 4 BDI, BOT, BRN, ZIM 3 CHN, IRL, NZL, ZAM Women 8 ERI, ETH, GBR, JPN, KEN, USA 7 AUS, ESP, MAR 6 CAN, CHN, RUS 5 FRA, POR, TAN 4 BRN, IRL, ITA 3 ALG, NZL, RWA Host JOR CONTINENTAL CHAMPIONS If a Continental Association has organised, in the season 2008 / 2009, a Continental Cross Country Championships, the individual Champions and team Champions (up to a maximum of four in each race) will receive free full board accommodation (in a twin room) for three nights and 100% travel refund. If the Champions are not entered, the benefit will not be extended to second place. The Continental Associations concerned are invited to send the results of these competitions to the IAAF " www.amman2009.com/static/pdf/Team_Manual_English.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 15, 2009 4:21:49 GMT -5
Chris, I think that would be a fantastic option (though I assume the money from AGSI will disappear when the championships are no longer hosted in Gueph), and I would happily contact AC directly to support such a proposal.
I realize that this isn't quite what many are hoping for -- call me a pragmatist. I'm willing to give up on WXC (unless we win Americas) in exchange for the assurance that some sort of team will be named. Obviously there are some other details to consider -- we've historically done quite well in the junior races, as have the Americans, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to loosen the restriction for junior teams to top 2 at Americas for developmental purposes. But those are just details.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydolmage on Oct 15, 2009 7:41:12 GMT -5
I also think Chris' idea is a great idea. And I don't discount the likelihood that the Canadian team could regularly win the Americas meet.
Jay
|
|
|
|
Post by hancock on Oct 15, 2009 7:42:23 GMT -5
The Americas Race comes down too a 8k duel meet with the Americans B or C team depending how you look at it. How does a 8k perpare one for the toughest 12k you'll ever run. And it cost the athlete $1000 to run with the potential to get some money for world's.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 15, 2009 10:15:24 GMT -5
Chris, I think that would be a fantastic option (though I assume the money from AGSI will disappear when the championships are no longer hosted in Gueph), and I would happily contact AC directly to support such a proposal. I realize that this isn't quite what many are hoping for -- call me a pragmatist. I'm willing to give up on WXC (unless we win Americas) in exchange for the assurance that some sort of team will be named. Obviously there are some other details to consider -- we've historically done quite well in the junior races, as have the Americans, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to loosen the restriction for junior teams to top 2 at Americas for developmental purposes. But those are just details. I think it is a great idea as well. It could perhaps dovetail nicely with running at the USA championships, as Ron suggested. Even if we selected our team in December, having another high level meet to go to in February would set the stage well for the Americas race, and possibly, for those who make it, WXC. Of course the issue is always the money, but if wholesale changes are made, it could open up some doors where people are willing to give a new program a chance. *** The reasonable person may agree or disagree with the criteria set out, so I have no problem with that. I agree that the current situation is not the best one possible. But I think some respect has to be given to the administrators. I don't think it is fair call them liars. My conversation with an AC person came in the context of mountain running. I basically asked them what they had for us. It was explained that there wasn't even enough to give XC the support they wanted to give it. It seemed like a fair response to me. I'm not willing to engage in a conversation that assumes the worst of those people. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 15, 2009 10:37:47 GMT -5
Chris, great idea, in the absence of full funding for WXC. Some kind of focus is better than none.
And, journeyman, to suggest that I'm calling those at AC liars is a grossly simplistic interpretation of everything I've been saying. I've no doubt that they sincerely believe this is a purely budgetary issue, and are therefore not "lying". And it really IS just a budgetary issue if all current uses of the budget are taken as given in terms of their indispensibility. If I spend all my money on booze and cigarettes, and feel as though these are absolutely essential for my survival and well being, then I'm not lying when I say I have no money for other things. The trick is to get me to have a serious rethink of what I consider to be "essential" and what not. I think you understand, but are choosing to ignore, the nuances of my argument in order to avoid addressing my basic question, which is: Do you think AC's over all financial situation re: sponsorship and government funding could be any worse than it was between 77 and 92 (the years it fully funded WXC)? Or, do you think it has simply chosen to allocate it's money differently without offering an open accounting to the sport's stakeholders of exactly how it has chosen to reallocate its money in the years since it canceled WXC funding? And the fact the none of us really knows the answers to these questions is telling enough in itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 15, 2009 11:17:08 GMT -5
Ok, if you go to the AC site you can look at financials from 2001 to 2009. A quick look shows a budget of $9M in 2001 and a budget of under $2M in 2009. I realise this does not reach as far back as you would like, but there is a clear, significant trend there. It seemed to go down to about $6M to 2006, and in 2007 it dropped to current levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Oct 15, 2009 12:14:10 GMT -5
New nicknames? Priscilla "booze" Lopes-Schleip & Gary "cigarettes" Reed LOL Now that we're talking about only resolving the first step/round of the qualification criteria; AC can keep the same criteria if we just separate the National X-C champs from the America's/World X-C trials....like the old days. Anyone/everyone willing to train specifically for X-C thru winter & attend a specific X-C trial, say in Victoria in Feb. (o.k. ronb don't pee your pants with excitement  ), is extremely likly to take a spot on the team. So the 4 of 6 yadda, yadda criteria is not an issue. Having a separate trials race is akind to the pipedream of the 2 separate finish lines. All you're doing is separating the want-to-be WXC runners from the rest. The second stage of getting to WXC from Americas is another can of worms. As for competing in a US champs, that's highly unlikely. They won't let Cdns in US road champs (unless you pose as a psuedo American, say like from Providence ). It's even more unlikely in an central championship event like X-C where a national team selection is on the line. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 15, 2009 13:27:54 GMT -5
As this thread runs its course, I'd just like to say that I have a vision for Canadian athletics, and it is a very simple one, notwithstanding the gratuitous complexity of these kinds of discussions. It is that the best Canadians be allowed to compete against the world, subject to standards set by the international meetings themselves, and that some tax payer money be allotted to fund their travel and board in order to do this. This was the original vision of international sport, until sport was turned into form of propaganda, and its administrative bodies into a kind of make-work project for careerists and other hangers-on. This is what someone once referred to as an "athlete-centred" vision of sport. Further, if someone decides that Canadians aren't doing well enough against the world, by some criteria or other, then I propose that they do some training themselves to beat said Canadians or, if they're too old, that they round up some athletes and train them to do better than our current crop; or better still, that we take whatever money is left over after we've funded our athletes to compete against the rest of the world and use it to help them get better (sometimes referred to as "athlete development"). I'm not saying that no one should have a job administering the sport; I'm saying that the hiring of people to administer the sport should always be subordinate to these core functions, and should be administered by volunteers or individuals receiving small honoria if necessary to preserve these core functions. If this administrative model sounds familiar, it should. Call it "amateurism without the snobbery".
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 15, 2009 18:37:52 GMT -5
Ok, if you go to the AC site you can look at financials from 2001 to 2009. A quick look shows a budget of $9M in 2001 and a budget of under $2M in 2009. I realise this does not reach as far back as you would like, but there is a clear, significant trend there. It seemed to go down to about $6M to 2006, and in 2007 it dropped to current levels. Nope. Spending in 2001 was 3.2 million, 2002 was 2.8 million, 2008 was 4.5 million and 2009 was almost 5 million. You are looking at the BALANCE SHEET. It does shrink which may or may not relate to the size of the budget but in this case it is because the Athletes' Reserve Trust fund shrank from over 9 million to under 1 million from 2009 to 2001 which makes sense given the new rules. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 15, 2009 19:34:12 GMT -5
Thanks, SI. I knew there was something wrong with those numbers, but I didn't have time to take another look.
I have no proof, of course, but I'm going to guess this organization was no more flush in from the late 70s through the 80s than it has been since WXC funding was dumped. And, if there ever were really lean times, I would imagine they would have been in the immediate wake of the Ben Johnson affair. But, WXC was funded for 4 more years after that. I suppose things would have gotten tough again during the Martin deficit cutting years post-92, but that was now 17 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 16, 2009 20:32:37 GMT -5
Ok, if you go to the AC site you can look at financials from 2001 to 2009. A quick look shows a budget of $9M in 2001 and a budget of under $2M in 2009. I realise this does not reach as far back as you would like, but there is a clear, significant trend there. It seemed to go down to about $6M to 2006, and in 2007 it dropped to current levels. Nope. Spending in 2001 was 3.2 million, 2002 was 2.8 million, 2008 was 4.5 million and 2009 was almost 5 million. You are looking at the BALANCE SHEET. It does shrink which may or may not relate to the size of the budget but in this case it is because the Athletes' Reserve Trust fund shrank from over 9 million to under 1 million from 2009 to 2001 which makes sense given the new rules. Fair enough. Financial statement reading is not really my thing. What new rules? |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 16, 2009 20:56:23 GMT -5
1) Who knows the link to the FISU Cross Country Selection? That should be a great opportunity for many of our runners, yes?
2) Does every Province have a 1) Provincial High School Championships?
and a 2) Provincial Club Championships? Dates ?
Please chime in from your Province.....trying to put together a bit of a document here...
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 16, 2009 22:08:56 GMT -5
B.C. Cross Country Championships - October 31st.
B.C. Secondary School Cross Country Championships - November 7th.
|
|
|
|
Post by schester on Oct 16, 2009 22:19:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by trackspike on Oct 16, 2009 23:34:18 GMT -5
Alberta High School Champs October 17
Alberta Midget to Junior Champs October 24
Alberta Senior Champs October 31
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 17, 2009 5:28:20 GMT -5
I am pretty sure athletes used to have to funnel some of their income through AC. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 17, 2009 12:21:18 GMT -5
Thanks Sean. But I still can't locate the specific selection criteria for the 2010 FISU Cross-Country Championships. This will not be an AC announcement, but a CIS announcement I believe. There are six guys and six gals, born between Jan.1st/'82 and Dec. 1st/92, so turning 18 to 28 during 2010. I assume that the CIS Cross Country Championships will be used for selection, but I don't know for sure. Does anyone know? |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 17, 2009 12:22:56 GMT -5
Alberta High School Champs October 17 Alberta Midget to Junior Champs October 24 Alberta Senior Champs October 31 Does anyone else have Provincial Championships for either High School or Club? I think I heard that Ontario used to have a High School Championship, of some kind. Probably very low-key. |
|
|
|
Post by trackspike on Oct 17, 2009 12:54:36 GMT -5
First 6 eligible runners (men and women)across the line at CI Championships will qualify for FISU
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 17, 2009 19:07:21 GMT -5
First 6 eligible runners (men and women)across the line at CI Championships will qualify for FISU Thanks, trackspike. There must be some sort of backup selection plan, for those who either aren't interested, or in shape, or injured, or whatever. Is that in writing anywhere? It is 5 months between the CIS and the FISU Championships, so is there a selection pool, or how does that work? |
|
|
|
Post by lambert on Oct 19, 2009 11:57:23 GMT -5
There must be some sort of backup selection plan, for those who either aren't interested, or in shape, or injured, or whatever. Is that in writing anywhere? In the past, the selection has always been to take the six highest placing athletes from CIS who elect to go. In 2006, they went eight deep for selecting men (Christiano and Kristjan elected not to attend). In 2008, they went at least thirteen deep for the men. I've never seen a published selection criteria, but the process appears to be quite well established. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Moulton on Oct 19, 2009 12:10:10 GMT -5
I believe it is six men and FIVE women, as they only allow five women to compete with only three scoring. I know it is sexist and the CIS has put forward a motion on a nearly annual basis to change this.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 19, 2009 13:22:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 19, 2009 17:24:44 GMT -5
I believe it is six men and FIVE women, as they only allow five women to compete with only three scoring. I know it is sexist and the CIS has put forward a motion on a nearly annual basis to change this. The FISU site says maximum of 6 to run for both men and women, but 4 to score for men, and 3 to score for women. If correct, that seems a bit bizarre. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Moulton on Oct 20, 2009 12:22:04 GMT -5
Looks like you are correct Ron, this is great news!
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 20, 2009 14:02:16 GMT -5
Looks like you are correct Ron, this is great news! 6 and 6 is good, but why still 3 to score? I understand at a developmental stage, in order to increase the number of full teams, but at this point, most countries should be able to field full women's teams, no? |
|
|
|
Post by trackspike on Oct 20, 2009 15:21:19 GMT -5
Selection Criteria are listed as 'revised' on the AC site. At first glance, I'm hard pressed to see a significant/relevant change. Any comments?
OVERVIEW
Over the last few years, Athletics Canada has worked to build a comprehensive National Cross Country
team concept focused on high performance team results. This year that trend will continue with
participation at the World Cross Country Championships dependant on success at the regional level. In
2010, Trinidad & Tobago will play host to an expanded regional championships including all of the
Americas, although it will be scored as a NACAC competition. Bydgoszcz, Poland hosts the World Cross
Country Championships and AC looks to send only teams that are ready to take on the World.
Dates Location Event
Saturday, November 28, 2009 Guelph, ONT Trials – 2009 National XC Championships
January - February, 2010 TBD Individual select competitive and training opportunities
Saturday, March 6, 2010 Trinidad & Tobago Americas XC Championships
Saturday, March 27, 2010 Bydgoszcz, Poland IAAF World Cross Country Championships
QUALIFYING TRIALS
Participation at the Canadian Cross Country Championships in Guelph, Ontario on November 28, 2009 is
mandatory for all athletes wishing to be considered for the 2010 National Cross Country Team.
OBJECTIVES for the Americas XC Championships
To enter full teams (at least the scoring number plus 1 alternate) capable of winning the Americas
Championship
To give individual NACAC champions who are committed to Cross Country in 2010 as part of their
overall program an opportunity to qualify for the IAAF World Cross Country Championships
To give an international competitive opportunity for developing endurance athletes entering, or part
of Athletics Canada’s High Performance stream
To use this project as a strong long-term development and strategic planning tool for Canada’s
middle and long distance running program
SELECTION PROCESS for the Americas XC Championship
Athletes finishing in the top 8 ELIGIBLE places at the Trials to be considered for selection*;
Team selections will be based on order of finish at the Trials with the top 6 being automatically
selected. Others will be in the selection pool should any of the first 6 be unable to participate;
In order for a team to be selected, a minimum of 5 ELIGIBLE finishers must declare for the team;
A minimum of 4 of the top 6 finishers MUST declare for a team to be selected in each event;
Page 2 of 2
Last revised: October 20, 2009
Individual National Champions ONLY are still selectable in the event a team is not selected;
Junior athletes must be born in 1991, 1992 or 1993 and must compete in the Junior Championship
race at the trials to be considered eligible
*Developing senior athletes who finish 9th – 12th at the trials and have not previously competed
internationally on an Athletics Canada senior team will be considered for selection in order to
complete teams
OBJECTIVES for the IAAF World XC Championships
To enter world class teams in the 2010 IAAF World Cross Country Championships (at least the
scoring number plus 1 alternate) capable of finishing in the top ½ of the field as a team
To have teams finish in the top ½ of the field at the IAAF World Championships
To enter individual Americas Champions capable of finishing in the top ½ of the field
To provide international exposure to current and future Senior High Performance athletes
SELECTION PROCESS for the IAAF World XC Championships
+NOTE - Teams are not guaranteed to attend the IAAF World XC Championships
Athletes MUST compete at the Americas Championships March 6, 2010 in Trinidad & Tobago
Teams MUST finish in the top 2 among NACAC countries at the Americas Championship in order to be
selectable
Teams must be deemed capable of finishing in the top ½ of teams at the World Championship
NACAC winners at the Americas Championships are eligible for selection on an individual basis if a full
team is not selectable based on their competitive readiness and ability to perform at the world level
RATIONALE
In keeping with Athletics Canada’s High Performance mandate and to ensure that a standard of
excellence is expected and achievable by all teams and individuals representing Canada at international
events, athlete MUST have a minimum standard to achieve. Winning the Americas Championships is seen
as the first step and an achievable team goal. Teams and individuals will be selected to the World Cross
Country Championships based on their readiness to compete at the world level.
TRAVEL
AC will coordinate and book all travel for this team. Please refer to the Athletes Manual for additional
information.
FUNDING
While team fundraising initiatives are being considered, athletes will be responsible for some self-funding.
The Cross Country National Team Program will be partially funded by Guelph sponsor AGSI. Significant
funding towards this project can be earned through top 3 placing at the Trials. Individual and team
champions at the Americas Championship are also eligible to receive additional IAAF funding towards the
World Cross Country Championships.
|
|
|
|
Post by lambert on Oct 20, 2009 15:27:02 GMT -5
There appear to be two major changes:
1) The Americas race is scored as a NACAC meet for the purposes of team selection (e.g., top two NACAC teams, or NACAC Champion)
2) Developing senior athletes who finish 9th – 12th at the trials and have not previously competed internationally on an Athletics Canada senior team will be considered for selection in order to complete teams
|
|
), is extremely likly to take a spot on the team. So the 4 of 6 yadda, yadda criteria is not an issue. Having a separate trials race is akind to the pipedream of the 2 separate finish lines. All you're doing is separating the want-to-be WXC runners from the rest.