|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 21, 2009 18:47:26 GMT -5
Excellent points, slamer !
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 21, 2009 19:23:18 GMT -5
Journeyman, only "loudest" posters disagree!? Is there an audio component to this board that I'm missing out on? If you can point one single other person, loud or quiet, who's in agreement with not just the current AC proposal but the original one (which, we've all agreed is not substantially different from) then please start pointing.
As for seeing both sides, I see quite the opposite on your part: you have only tried to find various ways to defend the side you starting defending in the first place, with increasing degrees of obfuscation. You are not seeing both sides, you are inventing NEW sides (all of which end up defending AC's position on this) as you go along!
Slamer, you are hitting the nail on the head.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 21, 2009 19:57:35 GMT -5
If you can point one single other person, loud or quiet, who's in agreement with not just the current AC proposal but the original one (which, we've all agreed is not substantially different from) then please start pointing. I thought that, on this board, there would be 100% in agreement that the criteria were unfair. Actually only 22 out of 38 thought that which is a bit surprising. Journeyman is clearly not alone and maybe there is a silent group that agrees with him that is larger than you think. |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 21, 2009 20:06:14 GMT -5
If you can point one single other person, loud or quiet, who's in agreement with not just the current AC proposal but the original one (which, we've all agreed is not substantially different from) then please start pointing. I thought that, on this board, there would be 100% in agreement that the criteria were unfair. Actually only 22 out of 38 thought that which is a bit surprising. Journeyman is clearly not alone and maybe there is a silent group that agrees with him that is larger than you think. And 4 more of the 38 didn't care, and 4 more of the 38 said it would be fair if fully funded, which it isn't. So, 8 of the 38 think it is fair as is. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 21, 2009 20:12:45 GMT -5
If you can point one single other person, loud or quiet, who's in agreement with not just the current AC proposal but the original one (which, we've all agreed is not substantially different from) then please start pointing. I thought that, on this board, there would be 100% in agreement that the criteria were unfair. Actually only 22 out of 38 thought that which is a bit surprising. Journeyman is clearly not alone and maybe there is a silent group that agrees with him that is larger than you think. SI, why would you think there would be 100 % in agreement on this board? That seems a bit demeaning, as if you are assuming there is any sort of automatic "robotic" consensus here, whether it is a "pro" or "anti" vote. I think the wording of the question is a bit problematical. Whether it is "fair" or whether it is in the best long term interests of our sport, might receive a different response, do you think? As for announcing the criteria, and then changing it, long after our Nationally carded athletes and coaches have formulated their annual training/competition plans, is reflective of what a joke the whole process is. Do we have a solid long-term view of the importance of our National cross-country program? Or does it just bounce around, depending on who shows up, or decides to go, in any given year? The answer is obvious, and detrimental to our athletes and our development. And it is a shame that a majority of our paid AC staff wouldn't even understand this discussion, or could care less. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 21, 2009 20:30:11 GMT -5
SI, I'm amazed that you could come up with this so quickly, but I'll take your word for, I guess. My sense, however, is that whatever agreement there was was very early on, and that it tended to dissolve somewhat as people started registering what these proposals actually meant. I may be wrong, but I think the initial agreement had to do with the general idea that "tough standards are good", not so much with this proposal in all its detail. I think my impression that everyone disagrees with the proposals (wrong though it may be if we look at the discussion as a whole) arises from the fact that so few have expressed any agreement with them as the discussion has gone along. Are those in agreement simply more demure, as journeyman suggests, or do they realize that what they originally defended in indefensible, if you happen to care about promoting a Canadian presence in international X-C. I will say, however, that not many have expressed agreement with my own position-- the full funding for World X-C should be reinstated-- and I am a bit surprised that this would be so. How can it have become so utopian to be in favour of a policy that was actually IN PLACE for almost as long as it has now been gone? Is Canada that much poorer, and is sport that much more poorly funded, that the idea of bringing back what was once there has now become completely pie-in-the-sky? Let's bear one thing in mind: X-C funding was not cut because Canada was doing particularly poorly at this event. It was originally suspended to deal with what we were told were temporary budget shortfalls. And then they discovered the wonders of "self-funding".
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 21, 2009 21:36:15 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. I find this a very patronizing comment Journeyman. Shut up and go out and train and just deal with the hand your given and don't you dare complain about it. Thanks for the advice. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 21, 2009 21:45:59 GMT -5
... not many have expressed agreement with my own position-- the full funding for World X-C should be reinstated-- and I am a bit surprised that this would be so. How can it have become so utopian to be in favour of a policy that was actually IN PLACE for almost as long as it has now been gone? Is Canada that much poorer, and is sport that much more poorly funded, that the idea of bringing back what was once there has now become completely pie-in-the-sky? I guess I am looking at this all as an opportunity rather than a roadblock. An opportunity for someone other than AC (e.g. the vocal group on here who want Canada to send runners to international distance runnig events) to step up and find a way to promote the sport. Not regulate it, but help fund and promote it. If there is a legitimate groundswell, and strong desire to mke this happen, surely someone can step up and make it happen. I discovered this week that a colleague basically invented a new sport a dozen years ago, give or take (off road unicycle racing - yes, I'm serious), and now it's an internationally competitive sport that draws sponsorship dollars. We've all seen the rise of ridiculous sports to enormous popularity (poker...wtf?!?). How does that happen? Someone comes along with a great idea and markets it, creating a demand where none existed before. Here in Ottawa, Jeff Hunt did the same 10 years ago (roughly) with the Ottawa 67s, turning a dying product into a hugely profitable enterprise. With no real change in the product. The hockey wasn't particularly any better. If we want to get athletes funding, we need to market our sport and create a demand, and generate sponsorship dollars. Whining and complaining about AC (while perhaps merited) isn't going to get us anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by feens on Oct 21, 2009 21:50:21 GMT -5
I will say, however, that not many have expressed agreement with my own position-- the full funding for World X-C should be reinstated-- and I am a bit surprised that this would be so. Oldster, I would guess that there are far more who agree with you (to some extent at least) than are actually post. As you said, it's a 'utopian' ideal, and every year things just seem to get worse. Perhaps some have just gotten tired of banging their heads against a wall, and others who just don't bother posting here to express their discontent. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 21, 2009 21:53:28 GMT -5
Fair enough. Point taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 21, 2009 22:03:14 GMT -5
SI, I'm amazed that you could come up with this so quickly, but I'll take your word for, I guess. My sense, however, is that whatever agreement there was was very early on, and that it tended to dissolve somewhat as people started registering what these proposals actually meant. I may be wrong, but I think the initial agreement had to do with the general idea that "tough standards are good", not so much with this proposal in all its detail. I think my impression that everyone disagrees with the proposals (wrong though it may be if we look at the discussion as a whole) arises from the fact that so few have expressed any agreement with them as the discussion has gone along. Are those in agreement simply more demure, as journeyman suggests, or do they realize that what they originally defended in indefensible, if you happen to care about promoting a Canadian presence in international X-C. I will say, however, that not many have expressed agreement with my own position-- the full funding for World X-C should be reinstated-- and I am a bit surprised that this would be so. How can it have become so utopian to be in favour of a policy that was actually IN PLACE for almost as long as it has now been gone? Is Canada that much poorer, and is sport that much more poorly funded, that the idea of bringing back what was once there has now become completely pie-in-the-sky? Let's bear one thing in mind: X-C funding was not cut because Canada was doing particularly poorly at this event. It was originally suspended to deal with what we were told were temporary budget shortfalls. And then they discovered the wonders of "self-funding". I agree fully with your view and will support you 100%. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 21, 2009 22:06:01 GMT -5
If we want to get athletes funding, we need to market our sport and create a demand, and generate sponsorship dollars. Whining and complaining about AC (while perhaps merited) isn't going to get us anywhere. Unfortunately with AC involved, a lot of potential sponsors are turned off. |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 21, 2009 22:08:05 GMT -5
Or it's a given that most of us agree that full-funding should happen, and we don't even need to express it. If you are one of the very best in the country, and you are representing Canada at the World version of your event, which the national governing body recognizes as the world event, then your country should send you. I have always believed in fully funded teams, or just don't go at all.
Good God....I went to 11 world military XC champs, representing the Canadian Forces.....fully funded of course, AND getting paid while I'm there.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 21, 2009 23:09:44 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. I find this a very patronizing comment Journeyman. Shut up and go out and train and just deal with the hand your given and don't you dare complain about it. Thanks for the advice. HHH: Sorry. It was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. I'm pretty sure no one here needs my cajoling to get out and train. My point is more that what will get someone on the team is training, not jimmying the standards so that if they happen to finish 9th instead of 8th they can go to an international championship. I have been on two "national" teams, both for mountain running. I was excited and it was good, in the moment, to wear Canada's colours and have people yelling "GO CANADA" at me. But I was fully aware that I was only on the team because better runners declined. The experience is very good for impressing people who don't know much about running because a national team is a national team to them. But I know, and most people who know running will know, that the 2005 and 2006 mountain running teams were not "high performance" national teams. Hopefully things are changing a bit now, but anyway, what I'm trying to say is the selection criteria shouldn't influence what anyone does in training or racing. There is only one way to go, and that is to train as well as you can and compete as well as you can. Slamer: if Bekele and Tadesse were Canadian, I'm pretty sure we would not have these standards. They would not be necessary as we would have enough high end talent to ensure the performance at international events AC is looking for. Is it their right to demand it? Maybe, maybe not. Also: even if the standard did not have the 4 of 6 clause, making the team would still involve what someone else does. You could run your best race and yet someone else ran faster than you...you are off the team, through no fault of your own: you did everything you could. Oldster, I actually agree with your position on funding. The best thing would be full funding. But I am reading these standards in the current context. Full funding is not an option, apparently. I don't know why that is. Anyway, the other extreme is fully self-funded. It's true that there are different moral expectations (?) depending on who is paying, but in the end, AC still gets to decide who is on the team and what purpose the team will serve (again, should they? I don't know, but they DO). Sending a team for the sake of sending a team is fine, I guess, but if we want to have good performances at international events, then making it harder to make the team will ensure that those who do make the team are more likely to achieve those good performances. Do we want a successful team at WXC or just a team? Now, I can accept an argument that if we are going to send "just a team" that is self-funded, sure, send whoever wants to go. But clearly the criteria are set out to send a successful team or no team. So the real question that needs to be asked is, is this the best way to do achieve high performance? My position is, given the resources, yes. Is it absolutely the best way? No, the absolute best way would be to fully fund a team of all the best athletes. So this is a compromise. As for the "louder" posters, as SI pointed out, HHH made a poll. The poll was not unanimously against the criteria, so clearly not "everyone" agrees with you. People have sent me emails and messages offline, but obviously they have done so because they don't want to get into it publicly, for various reasons. The majority seems to be on your side. That's fine by me. It doesn't make you right. I have not been convinced by anyone here that these criteria are bad for Canadian distance running. I'm willing to concede that they might not seem fair to some people, especially the person who potentially gets left off the team if someone doesn't go (I suspect there must be an injury exemption...has anyone asked about that?). But in the bigger picture, I have not been convinced this is bad. I'm not inventing new sides, I'm thinking of new ways of looking at it, instead of being stuck in the same position. I just happen to have a big assignment due this week which means intense procrastination to go along with intense work... I think I'm done here though. I will slip silently into the night on this issue, as the people have spoken, and they don't want to hear from me no more...  |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 22, 2009 9:00:55 GMT -5
And 4 more of the 38 didn't care, and 4 more of the 38 said it would be fair if fully funded, which it isn't. So, 8 of the 38 think it is fair as is. Right-which makes my point that there are those that don't agree with Oldster. Read stuff in context please. To prove my point, I needed only one person not 8. People are entitled to their own opinions around here but they aren't entitled to their own facts. Believe it or not, I was not making a statement about the "fairness" of it-have already admitted I am agnostic on it if you would actually read through the thread. SI, why would you think there would be 100 % in agreement on this board? That seems a bit demeaning, as if you are assuming there is any sort of automatic "robotic" consensus here, whether it is a "pro" or "anti" vote. Huh? It was a throw away line because I was surprised oldster wasn't right. Take it up with him. He said it first. SI, I'm amazed that you could come up with this so quickly, but I'll take your word for, I guess. My sense, however, is that whatever agreement there was was very early on, and that it tended to dissolve somewhat as people started registering what these proposals actually meant. I may be wrong, but I think the initial agreement had to do with the general idea that "tough standards are good", not so much with this proposal in all its detail. I don't understand what you are saying. HHH started a poll-I just reported the results. I didn't come up with anything. He started it on Oct 13th when the thread was over 8 pages long. I think most people had a chance to make a reasonably informed decision at that point and over the next 4 days. Oldster, I actually agree with your position on funding. The best thing would be full funding. what I'm trying to say is the selection criteria shouldn't influence what anyone does in training or racing. There is only one way to go, and that is to train as well as you can and compete as well as you can. I agree with both of these comments and, believe it or not, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I am a fan and participant in the sport and would love to see full funding for a sport I love but, as a taxpayer, I don't necessarily think it is a good idea because of what I think is the actual problem. As a fan, I am pretty sure I signed oldster's letter and, as a fan, when we went around the horn on this before, I offered to kick in a grand if they changed the criteria. They did and I did. As a taxpayer, neither of those moves may have been very smart. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 22, 2009 10:31:33 GMT -5
Unfortunately with AC involved, a lot of potential sponsors are turned off. Clearly, you're not the guy to lead the charge (nor am I). Successful marketing requires a can do attitude, a great idea and hard work. Not moaning and complaining. I'm not really convinced there's sufficient desire among our community to turn things around, because if there were, someone would emerge to carry the torch and we'd rally behind them. The fact that our sport is mired in funding no-man's land tells me there simply isn't anough demand. The vocal few on here who want to see our sport grow seem to (IMHO) represent, unfortunately, a very small minority. The average Canadian could care less about our sport. Hence lack of funding, and (relative) lack of interest in LD running on AC's part (in comparison with other aspects of athletics that the publc is interested in supporting). We've seen a lot of isolated efforts... AGSI's support of XC nats.... Brooks setting up their marathon project... John Carson and his crew bringing world class T&F to Toronto... ronb's attempt to stage a big money race a couple of years back... etc. But nobody in particular leading a coordinated national rally behind LD running at the senior level. Unless someone (a positive individual, so unfortunately this excludes some of the more vocal participants in this discussion - and I mean no offence by this comment, but some people are more inclined to see the glass half full, and this would have to be a glass half full kinda person) steps up, we're all just pissing in the wind. Mountain running has sponsorship support ferchrissakes! Why can't WE go out and find some cash to support senior development? |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 22, 2009 11:37:35 GMT -5
Mountain running has sponsorship support ferchrissakes! Why can't WE go out and find some cash to support senior development? AGSI gives more to XC than we get from various sources in Mountain Running. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 22, 2009 12:56:25 GMT -5
New Zealand has "pre-selected" 10 athletes for the World Cross Country Championships - 4 women, 3 men, 1 junior man, 2 junior women. Other selections will be made after their Cross Country Trials, in Wellington, on January 30th. I don't know how many more will be selected, and what the funding situation is. Bomba, you have some kiwi connections - what's the buzz?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 22, 2009 13:07:16 GMT -5
pq, I am in partial agreement with you. I don't think there is a lack of people who care about this issue, as much as there is a lack of positive leadership, from within the Association.
With the tens of thousands of runners in our schools and colleges and universities who are running in cross-country races this Fall, there is an obvious opportunity to try and keep this wave of talent and participation involved with our sport.
So, I disagree that there are other part of the total sport of Athletics that are inherently more interesting to a majority of Canadians. Distance running, in some form, and at some level, is much more familiar to most Canadians than most other events.
I would suggest that if re-building our National Cross Country Program was receiving the same emphasis from "within the tent" as re-building our National Relay Program, we could see dramatic positive change.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 22, 2009 13:38:47 GMT -5
I would suggest that if re-building our National Cross Country Program was receiving the same emphasis from "within the tent" as re-building our National Relay Program, we could see dramatic positive change. Fair enough, but who's inside the tent, so to speak, and are any of them interested in LD running? I don't know the answer to that, but my sense is not really. So you can either try to get some people who love LD running inside the tent, or, to a degree, you recognize there's a point of diminished returns that's already been surpassed (with respect to trying to get AC to lead the charge) and look for a different (easier) route. I recognize a high effort-low reward opportunity when I see one in my line of work, and don't waste a lot of effort chasing it. I think a similar concept maybe applies here. |
|
|
|
Post by feens on Oct 22, 2009 14:52:25 GMT -5
I've often wondered, I wonder what would happen if a sponsorship group (i.e. AGSI) went to AC and offered to fund something like a World XC team, but at the same time asked AC to adjust the entry requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 22, 2009 15:10:28 GMT -5
Unfortunately with AC involved, a lot of potential sponsors are turned off. Clearly, you're not the guy to lead the charge (nor am I). Successful marketing requires a can do attitude, a great idea and hard work. Not moaning and complaining. I'm not really convinced there's sufficient desire among our community to turn things around, because if there were, someone would emerge to carry the torch and we'd rally behind them. The fact that our sport is mired in funding no-man's land tells me there simply isn't anough demand. The vocal few on here who want to see our sport grow seem to (IMHO) represent, unfortunately, a very small minority. The average Canadian could care less about our sport. Hence lack of funding, and (relative) lack of interest in LD running on AC's part (in comparison with other aspects of athletics that the publc is interested in supporting). We've seen a lot of isolated efforts... AGSI's support of XC nats.... Brooks setting up their marathon project... John Carson and his crew bringing world class T&F to Toronto... ronb's attempt to stage a big money race a couple of years back... etc. But nobody in particular leading a coordinated national rally behind LD running at the senior level. Unless someone (a positive individual, so unfortunately this excludes some of the more vocal participants in this discussion - and I mean no offence by this comment, but some people are more inclined to see the glass half full, and this would have to be a glass half full kinda person) steps up, we're all just pissing in the wind. I do take offence. Through the events that I have put on in the last 2 years here in Edmonton, I have raised over $15K that has gone directly into the hands of athletes in the form of prize money, not to mention putting on competitive events for senior athletes. You might want to do a bit of research before you type or a the very least ask next time before you throw out those kind of words. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 22, 2009 15:53:27 GMT -5
You might want to do a bit of research before you type or a the very least ask next time before you throw out those kind of words. Good point! Would be interesting to see what research you did before you made this statement slamming the people at AC: Unfortunately with AC involved, a lot of potential sponsors are turned off. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 22, 2009 16:18:12 GMT -5
I also take some offense (although only a little, because I know pq means well) to being characterized as "negative" when it comes to this issue. The way I've always seen it is that if I do my part as a coach (such as spending countless unpaid hours-- years, really-- working to ensure that kids from 8 to 18 get a good start in the sport) then someone else, preferably the people who are PAID to do it, should step up and ensure that the best Canadians have funded opportunities to represent the country internationally. As I said earlier, the only thing I'm "negative" or "cynical" about is the leadership in this sport; and, I don't think we've even begun to do all we can by way of external pressure on this leadership. AC is administering a considerable amount of tax payer money that is already earmarked to be spent on this sport. I say we do all we can to pressure them to "reprioritize", or else do their part to find private sponsors, if private sponsorship is what it takes, before we talk about visionary private individuals resuscitating the sport by the force of their charisma and positive attitude. In fact, since there's really nothing that can be done without their cooperation anyway, AC is where our efforts should be focused. And if pressuring, including publicly exposing and shaming, the organization comes off a "negative", then so be it. It still helps to have creative and energetic promoters like John Carson (who's is working on great new projects even as we speak), but I really don't believe our formal leadership should be let off the hook so easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 22, 2009 16:20:42 GMT -5
I do take offence. Through the events that I have put on in the last 2 years here in Edmonton, I have raised over $15K that has gone directly into the hands of athletes in the form of prize money, not to mention putting on competitive events for senior athletes. You might want to do a bit of research before you type or a the very least ask next time before you throw out those kind of words. I don't think you take my point Matt. I regret offending you (which is not the same as being sorry), but I stand behind what I wrote. I've also contributed in various ways, as have, no doubt, most of those involved in this discussion. But that's not the point... my individual efforts haven't turned around Canadian LD running, and neither have yours, in spite of best intentions. What I am trying to do, in my contributions to this discussion, is encourage something OTHER than AC to develop organically from the grass roots level to support senior development in LD running. If there really is a critical mass of people supporting this sport, that sort of things should eventually develop on its own. But sometimes it takes the right person, or combination of circumstances and timing, for good things to start to happen. And sometimes, the will simply isn't there. Maybe that's the case here. Or maybe not. I am NOT good at marketing, but I do recognize that a successful effort would require a focus on the bright side, or the possibilities, rather than dwelling on the limitations. Successful entrepreneurs see opportunities where others see roadblocks. In this particular subject, I think the topic is too close to the heart, and too emotional, for many of those involved in this discussion to be able to formulate a positive perspective instead of a negative one. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 22, 2009 16:56:43 GMT -5
Good point! Would be interesting to see what research you did before you made this statement slamming the people at AC: I know of several major sponsors in the running community that will not support anything AC is involved in. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 22, 2009 17:01:45 GMT -5
Clearly, you're not the guy to lead the charge (nor am I). Successful marketing requires a can do attitude, a great idea and hard work. Not moaning and complaining. Seems like a pretty pointed criticism of myself, not sure how I can take that the wrong way? Unless someone (a positive individual, so unfortunately this excludes some of the more vocal participants in this discussion - and I mean no offence by this comment, but some people are more inclined to see the glass half full, and this would have to be a glass half full kinda person) steps up, we're all just pissing in the wind Again, a pretty direct criticism that I do take offence to. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 22, 2009 17:04:56 GMT -5
Seems like a pretty pointed criticism of myself, not sure how I can take that the wrong way? ... Again, a pretty direct criticism that I do take offence to. Did I say you took it the wrong way? It was aimed (in part) at you. I said I regret having offended you, not that I didn't expect to, or that I was sorry for it. You're justified in being offended. ... Yes, direct and intended. The offence part is an unfortunate aspect of it. Just calling a spade a spade. ***EDIT - OK I see your confusion. I wrote "I don't think you take my point" My point wasn't to offend you, so that's not what I was referring to. My point was that a positive attitude is necessary. This, you lack on this particular topic. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's not really a criticism (the opposite maybe - it speaks to your passion for the sport), but a simple observation. From the cheap seats. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 22, 2009 19:00:03 GMT -5
As I see it, here is the "rock and the hard place" in this interesting sharing of perspectives...
1) AC clearly has the authority to represent "our sport" at the International level.
2) "Our sport" includes many different sports, and with that, different seasons, facilities, perspectives, etc.
3) If there were an organization that represented the best interest of distance runners, then it would be required to answer to and through AC, and again AC would have to answer through their government funding partners to various bureacratic gods, at least at this stage of evolution.
4) The last thing AC would want to do is to grant a bit of autonomy to a sub-group or commission that represented the legitimate interests and aspirations of those who lace up their shoes (key point) to take part in a distance race in Canada in any given year. The numbers game would immediately become significant, and of course the numbers of runners would quickly translate to dollars and other support.
5) And thus we have this intermediate position, where we have a conflict between many individuals and groups who think they know a bit about distance running, and have the scars to prove it, and a National Governing Body which has a different set of limitations and/or interests.
6) Distance running should/could develop a quasi-independent body, which answers to/communicates with AC on mutual areas of interest, but which manages "our" part of the sport with a certain degree of ownership. How we get there from here, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetcoast on Oct 22, 2009 19:15:25 GMT -5
Wow there is a heck of a lot of discussion on here, which at this point just looks like discussion - like what is going to happen out of this?
There should be a concerted effort to get the World Cross to Canada. Now that done properly will create some much needed grassroots interest, sponsorship interest and general interest in the sport here. Also AC would want to field a full-on team, at home.
Time to look up the application process for submitting a bid to hosting....I'll report back...with my findings.
|
|
