|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 20, 2009 15:55:03 GMT -5
I think this is an extremely positive step. Is it the complete answer to everything we've been bitching about? Not yet, but it's a constructive move in the right direction, and it addresses some of the key points we've raised. The focus now: hope we can put together strong teams at NACAC (and hopefully WXC) to start getting rid of the sense that we need these types of restrictions on team eligibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 20, 2009 17:15:45 GMT -5
I agree with ahutch --- this is a step in the right direction. But I disagree that people are just "bitching", when they offer opinions that are contrary to the status quo. Of course, people have different styles and motivations in here, as anywhere, but I think forums such as this have the potential to create a voice, and sometimes that can influence change.
As for the FISU Championships, it looks as though each Country can enter 7 names in each of the Races, and then select 6 to run on the day. I have no idea why only the top 3 women can score, instead of the 4 for men. I still think the final selection process needs a bit of review, as selecting your top 7 from mid-November, for a mid-April competition, is stretching it a bit, although I love the idea of the CIS All Canadians gaining first shot at selection.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 20, 2009 19:02:00 GMT -5
No offense was intended with my choice of words, Ron. I have a dozen posts in this thread myself, and I agree it served as a valuable forum for hashing out ideas. Certainly, it forced me to think carefully about what I considered the most serious error in the criteria -- which, for me, was the disconnect between arguing that our teams would find more appropriate competition at Americas than Worlds and then enforcing similarly restrictive standards for the Americas meet. And this amendment tweaks precisely that aspect of the criteria.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 20, 2009 19:47:19 GMT -5
ahutch, I know you didn't really mean "bitching". And your contributions are always interesting to me, because they are well thought out, and well expressed. I think you have hit on a key point, and I agree with your perspective. As I see it, we are in some sort of transitional period for International Cross-Country running, and I would hate to see us lose the motivation that a well-constructed and supported program in this area can provide to our "total" distance running package. The "good olde days" are gone, but what do the good new days look like.....I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 20, 2009 21:38:42 GMT -5
Hey Journeyman, have you lost any respect for AC for changing its criteria in response to message board clamour!? And don't try to claim that our discussion here did not influence this decision;-)
At least a few people over there know that some of us on here are active in the developmental trenches in this sport, and are not complaining for the sake of complaining. If they DIDN'T use this forum as grassroots feedback on what they're doing (at least around the endurance events), they'd be either crazy or impenetrably insular. Nice to see that they are neither. This is still not enough, of course, but it removes some of the more egregious elements of the original proposal.
|
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 20, 2009 22:06:31 GMT -5
Ok, I'm really really slow, or tired, or something.
Did AC make some SUBSTANTIAL change, which obviously makes some of you happy, because of this thread?
|
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 20, 2009 22:10:38 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 Cus I'm just not getting the Bigness of this. Isn't it just minor tweaking? Please enlighten me, folks. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 20, 2009 22:14:31 GMT -5
Ok, I'm really really slow, or tired, or something. Did AC make some SUBSTANTIAL change, which obviously makes some of you happy, because of this thread? Cadet skuj! Your assignment is to re-read this thread, in it's entirety, and communicate your conclusions to ourselves, and the various Admirals and Generals that are under your command...Thanks for calling in the troops !!! |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 20, 2009 22:34:11 GMT -5
Hmmmmmm.....I really thought that I was keeping up. I must have gotten sidetracked somehow.
The 2 "major changes" quoted......oh man I dunno, where's my flowchart......
|
|
|
|
Post by lambert on Oct 21, 2009 7:06:04 GMT -5
Hmmmmmm.....I really thought that I was keeping up. I must have gotten sidetracked somehow. The 2 "major changes" quoted......oh man I dunno, where's my flowchart...... In my opinion, the changes are quite important, because they both increase the chances that there will actually be a Worlds Cross Country team. (Although the changes are not ideal, actually having enough interested people to field a team is certainly the most important.) In the past, Canada has not had difficulty finishing top 2 at NACAC (except in 2007 when we lost to Guatemala!!). So, that means if we have an Americas team, it will likely qualify for Worlds. Also, the fact that the selection criteria goes from eight to twelve will definitely make it easier to field an Americas team. The change adds 50% more people to the selection pool. Of course, they can't have been on a senior AC team, but I'm not sure what that would include. Does anyone know what a 'senior AC team' would be? Is that Olympics-Worlds-Worlds XC, or does that include minor teams such as NACAC XC, Mountain running, Francaphone, etc...? |
|
tc
New Member
Posts: 25 
|
Post by tc on Oct 21, 2009 8:19:09 GMT -5
|
|
oldbones
Full Member
And so it goes ...
Posts: 244
|
Post by oldbones on Oct 21, 2009 8:29:41 GMT -5
Who actually are the members of AC who make this decision? I am guessing it is a committee structure of some sort with inner voting membership and ratification?
Hugh Conlin?
Scott MacDonald?
Or a collective of the national office staff?
In any event it is good to see they are listening to the "broader community of engaged peers".
The power of the Internet ... to collaborate and communicate!
With this change are they actually opening the doors and starting a precedent for broader transparency and participation on the many policy issues?
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 21, 2009 8:36:34 GMT -5
This 4 of the top 6 will be the problem and adding up to the 12th place finisher if they haven't been on a senior team before doesn't really do much. It's a small step but not worthy of praise as it is still doubtful we will send a team to Americas, let alone worlds. I do like the top 2 NACAC team rule but if we can't get a team to the Americas, it's a mute point. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 21, 2009 9:17:05 GMT -5
Hey Journeyman, have you lost any respect for AC for changing its criteria in response to message board clamour!? And don't try to claim that our discussion here did not influence this decision;-) At least a few people over there know that some of us on here are active in the developmental trenches in this sport, and are not complaining for the sake of complaining. If they DIDN'T use this forum as grassroots feedback on what they're doing (at least around the endurance events), they'd be either crazy or impenetrably insular. Nice to see that they are neither. This is still not enough, of course, but it removes some of the more egregious elements of the original proposal. I would have stuck to my guns myself, but it does recognize the importance of having a team. I am in favour of having a team. I hope they do well. |
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Oct 21, 2009 9:20:14 GMT -5
Lipstick on a pig, fellas. Basically, they set out standards where there will be no senior teams. They took some heat, so they made small changes that will have no meaningful impact whatsoever. I suppose we should be thankful, but it's like kind of like getting fired from your job and on the way out the door your boss hands you a "Jelly of the Month" year-membership and tells you what a great worker you've been. Thanks for nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by lambert on Oct 21, 2009 11:43:38 GMT -5
I'm starting to agree with the consensus that these changes are minor after all.
I originally assumed that AC was planning on selecting the normal group of six athletes out of the pool that included the top 8 and developmental athletes from the next four finishers.
But, as TC points out, the requirement of four of the top six remains. This means that practically speaking, there will not be a Americas team, which means no Worlds team either.
I can't imagine they're making these changes to 'pull a fast one' on the message board discussion. i.e., are they making minor changes to appease the masses? I don't think this is a fair assumption, so what, then, is AC's intention with these changes? With the requirement of four of the top six still in place, it still seems unlikely that a team will attending, meaning any other changes are useless. I believe most contributors to this thread have agreed that without funding, getting four of the top six athletes to go to the Americas is unlikely. Perhaps AC is just optimistic that for some reason this year will be different and four of the top six will go...
SO, what is the next step? A message board thread seems to result in inconsequential changes. Who, if anyone, should we be contacting at AC?
Do we have an XC athletes rep or XC head coach at the AC who would address our concerns?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 21, 2009 12:28:46 GMT -5
My best guess is that the mostly cosmetic changes in the criteria resulted from contacts from "within". BC Athletics, and a number of athletes and a few coaches likely expressed their concerns directly to AC, and resulted in the "air-brushing". As nice as it would be to think that grassroots opinions aired on this forum are particularly important to the folks in Ottawa, I doubt that we are having much impact. Which is not to say that we shouldn't keep involved and interested and vocal, but probably more direct "political" action would be more effective. As a for instance, boycotting the Nationals by athletes who are not going to NACAC and thus the Worlds, might be effective. As would the obvious second finish line, 10 metres out from the real finish line, where those not going to NACAC could stop. Making sure all the media were there with cameras would also be helpful. Hey, cross-country running might actually make the news  Short of such drastic action, organizing a massive e-mail campaign, again with copies to all possibly interested media and politicians and sponsors, might be worth a try. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 21, 2009 12:31:46 GMT -5
There is still more of a chance of fielding a full team. Under the initial criteria, if 4 of the top 6 go, the team could only be filled out to 8th place. Now, there is the possibility of having it filled out to 12th place, with "rising star" athletes. There is more there.
|
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Oct 21, 2009 13:30:45 GMT -5
There is still more of a chance of fielding a full team. Under the initial criteria, if 4 of the top 6 go, the team could only be filled out to 8th place. Now, there is the possibility of having it filled out to 12th place, with "rising star" athletes. There is more there. In a related note, this morning a man pissed in the Sahara and promply proclaimed, "There's more water there!" |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 21, 2009 13:54:11 GMT -5
Come on, that is a ridiculous exaggeration. You guys are crying like someone has taken away your running shoes. Get out and train, run the race (or if you are a coach, watch helplessly from the sidelines), and deal with what happens. We are talking about a very small group of people in the Canadian cross country context. Thousands will run cross country this fall. Most of them will do so regardless of whether or not a dozen or so go to Poland. Get some perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Oct 21, 2009 14:11:04 GMT -5
It's not a ridiculous exaggeration. You said that there's now more of a chance of fielding a full team. There is, but it's such a small addition to such a small chance, that it's irrelevant. The rest of your post is not worth commenting on.
|
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 21, 2009 14:48:28 GMT -5
What do we have to do in order to make TnFN "the official forum of Athletics Canada"?
Yes, I'm serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 21, 2009 15:14:39 GMT -5
No question that what has been offered is still far from enough, and I agree with Ron that the changes offered are more in line with what, e.g., BC athletics was after. But, I wouldn't say the discussion here has been inconsequential. I'm sure some of the people at B.C. Athletics, for instance, would have been aware that many of us "stakeholders" were registering dissatisfaction. And I also agree with Ron that this all needs to go further, and that something more public and newsworthy, like an openly declared boycott (something I argued for as a next step following AC's response to the open letter thing back in 05), is the best approach. Through private exchanges, I know some others who have contributed to this discussion have already begun acting in other ways too.
And, journeyman, for what it's worth, I think your output in this discussion has become increasingly erratic. You say you think AC got it right the first time when everyone on here, and now AC itself (!), disagrees, and now you tell us that none of this matters anyway because grassroots Canadian X-C will go on regardless. Who ever said it wouldn't? Some of us are concerned with what it goes on TO: Funded international competition or simply domestic championships. If you really don't care if Canada ever sends a team to WXC again because "thousands will continue to run X-C anyway" why did you bother arguing about the funding and selection policies in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 21, 2009 15:17:14 GMT -5
Hmm, I forgot about the "4 of top 6" requirement -- that is disappointing. Still, I do think the changes represent an improvement, both in the increased probability of fielding a team, and perhaps more importantly, in the recognition that a national XC team program can be a valuable tool for developing athletes (something that may seem obvious but was neglected in the initial criteria). As journeyman's response suggests, there are plenty of people who would simply have chosen to "stick to their guns" rather than make any changes at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Oct 21, 2009 16:52:54 GMT -5
Hmm, I forgot about the "4 of top 6" requirement -- that is disappointing. Still, I do think the changes represent an improvement, both in the increased probability of fielding a team, and perhaps more importantly, in the recognition that a national XC team program can be a valuable tool for developing athletes (something that may seem obvious but was neglected in the initial criteria). As journeyman's response suggests, there are plenty of people who would simply have chosen to "stick to their guns" rather than make any changes at all. From what I understand, the "increased" chance (those extra 4 runners) is a very small one. Remember it's restricted those those who are new to representing Canada ("development athletes"). The juniors, who usually don't turn down spots to Americas should be fine. The senior men and women not so much. Looking at the Senior Men's 9-12, most had gone somewhere. Next year even more so with "surprises" being rare. What these criteria will do is 1 of 2 things 1) No team will go to the America's race. I assume this includes if 3 guys get injured 2) Guys will be nice and not race, therefore diminishing the quality of the race Number 1 will hold even if we had the 8 fastest guys in the world, and 3 don't go and the other 4 are old hats to the game. Think about this, by these criteria even Kenya, Ethiopia etc may not qualify for Americas!!!!!. This is dumb, especially since people pay for there own way. The criteria states: "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." (bold my emphasis, capital letters their emphasis) This says it all for me. It isn't about development, but to "ensure" that we "achieve" excellence if we represent Canada at International events. This is the rub for me and pretty much what Oldster has been saying all along. They think that by telling us we "expect" you to blah blah blah then those athletes will say... "Oh yeah!!! I didn't know you wanted me to run well. Well in that case I'll train harder. Sorry, my bad." Then that athlete will try harder and get better. See, it's that simple. In reality it's about looking good. Canadians put in nothing and expect great results every 4 years. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 21, 2009 17:26:00 GMT -5
And, journeyman, for what it's worth, I think your output in this discussion has become increasingly erratic. You say you think AC got it right the first time when everyone on here, and now AC itself (!), disagrees, and now you tell us that none of this matters anyway because grassroots Canadian X-C will go on regardless. Who ever said it wouldn't? Some of us are concerned with what it goes on TO: Funded international competition or simply domestic championships. If you really don't care if Canada ever sends a team to WXC again because "thousands will continue to run X-C anyway" why did you bother arguing about the funding and selection policies in the first place? I just don't share your opinion that this will result in the end of the national team program and that AC will then blame it all on the athletes. As such, the sky is not falling, and life will go on. If there are enough athletes to make a team that can reach the standards AC has set, there will be international competition. The "louder" posters disagree. AC seems to have agreed that the pool could be a bit larger, but the main spirit of the policy remains intact. Whether you believe that spirit is an encouragement of true high performance at a national team level, or a crushing of the spirit of Canada's sub-elite, is a matter of opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 21, 2009 17:31:57 GMT -5
Oh, and what you perceive to be erratic may just be an ability to see both sides, and not dig trenches and stick by my position no matter what. It is difficult to have a real and nuanced discussion in this forum because issues get split down the middle. It is quite possible to agree with these criteria and be supportive of Canadian distance running. So I would modify my last statement:
Whether you believe that spirit is an encouragement of true high performance at a national team level, or a crushing of the spirit of Canada's sub-elite, or anything in between, is a matter of opinion.
I'm not saying everyone is right, peace and love, etc etc, but it is clear that without results we can't determine that any of us here are right or wrong. So in that respect, I stand by my fluctuating opinions. It's ok to change one's mind, and it's ok to only change it a little bit, too.
I'm sorry that my lack of consistency frustrates you. That's just the way I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 21, 2009 17:37:10 GMT -5
They think that by telling us we "expect" you to blah blah blah then those athletes will say... "Oh yeah!!! I didn't know you wanted me to run well. Well in that case I'll train harder. Sorry, my bad." Then that athlete will try harder and get better. See, it's that simple. In reality it's about looking good. Canadians put in nothing and expect great results every 4 years. I don't think it is a problem for AC to change the standard required for making a national team. I don't believe this is the intent, in the sense that AC is not suggesting that athletes need to try harder. They should keep trying as they are, and maybe it will take an extra year or two before an individual athlete gets to the level required. What I don't think has any base in reality is the argument that being prevented from going to WXC in 2010 is going to necessarily prevent such an athlete from going in 2011 and 2012. It would be different if the criteria were, say, top 8, straight up, and then AFTER the race they were changed. But the criteria are right there up front. It might close some doors this year. Anyway, all this will be moot when the top guys and girls end up going and we have a decent team. That is still a realistic outcome, yet you all are worried about what might happen. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 21, 2009 17:37:54 GMT -5
Those most likely to have a direct vote in decisions made by AC in this area are, in alphabetical order ---- Emily Colton, Hugh Conlin, Alex Gardiner, Martin Goulet, Scott MacDonald, and Thelma Wright.
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Oct 21, 2009 18:05:44 GMT -5
I don't think it is a problem for AC to change the standard required for making a national team. I don't believe this is the intent, in the sense that AC is not suggesting that athletes need to try harder. They should keep trying as they are, and maybe it will take an extra year or two before an individual athlete gets to the level required. What I don't think has any base in reality is the argument that being prevented from going to WXC in 2010 is going to necessarily prevent such an athlete from going in 2011 and 2012. it well might. If you read the standards (or even my summation) you'll see, either a team will go (at the expence of a more competitive National Cross race for the Seniors), or they wont (regardless of how talented the individual is). So if Bekele and Tadesse were canadian. Tadesse beats Bekele, then gets injured and can't go. If no teams goes, neither will Bekele be able to go to the Americas nevermind WXC. Does that sound reasonable to you? Please acknowlege you understand this point. The criteria is NOT reasonable AT ALL. The only way this changes is they change the criteria. The criteria is based on WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO! The ONLY way that one can guarantee to go to the Americas race is to win Nationals. And that is it. I'm not even talking about WXC. Just Americas. In case you missed this point, I'll say that again. This criteria is JUST for AMERICAS. I'll make my point when you at least acknowledge what I'm getting at in this point first. |
|
Short of such drastic action, organizing a massive e-mail campaign, again with copies to all possibly interested media and politicians and sponsors, might be worth a try.