Canadian XC - Overall Scores and Other Analysis

[Steve Weiler]

As I commented on previously, I scored the 2009 Canadian XC Championships similar to what's now done at Ontario XC. After playing with the 2008 results, and having only 4 divisions to work with, it looked like 15 was a good number to work with. So, the top-15 individuals scored (15, 14...2, 1) and top-10 teams scored (15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) in Junior/Senior Men/Women. I removed Unattached and Disassociated athletes and teams from the scoring process.

2009 Canadian XC Championships Overall Team Scores
1. Edmonton Thunder - 81
2. Speed River - 57
3. UTTC - 50
4. Windsor Legion - 37
5. PIH - 32
6. Newmarket - 31
7. Queen City - 30
8. NOC - 29
9-tie Physi-Kult - 27
9-tie U of C Athletics - 27
11. Sherbrooke - 26
12. TOC - 22
13. Ocean Athletics - 18
14. SSD - 16
15-tie London Runner - 14
15-tie Pacific Athletics - 14

A total of 45 teams scored points.

A closer look at these top-16 teams shows:

Top-16 - Womens Scores
1. Edmonton Thunder - 75
2. UTTC - 41
3. U of C Athletics - 22
4. Newmarket - 17
5-tie Queen City - 15
5-tie Sherbrooke - 15
5-tie SSD - 15
8. NOC - 14
9-tie Ocean Athletics - 7
9-tie Speed River - 7
9-tie PIH - 7
12-tie Windsor Legion - 0
12-tie Physi-Kult - 0
12-tie TOC - 0
12-tie London Runner - 0
12-tie Pacific Athletics - 0

Top-16 - Mens Scores
1. Speed River - 50
2. Windsor Legion - 37
4. Physi-Kult - 27
5. PIH - 25
6. TOC - 22
7-tie Queen City - 15
7-tie NOC - 15
9-tie Newmarket - 14
9-tie London Runner - 14
9-tie Pacific Athletics - 14
12-tie Sherbrooke - 11
12-tie Ocean Athletics - 11
13. UTTC - 9
14. Edmonton Thunder - 6
15. U of C Athletics - 5
16. SSD - 1

Diversity - # of Categories Scoring Points (out of 8 possible)
1. UTTC - 6
2. Edmonton Thunder - 5
3-tie Speed River - 4
3-tie Newmarket - 4
3-tie TOC - 4
6-tie PIH - 3
6-tie NOC - 3
6-tie Physi-Kult - 3
6-tie U of C Athletics - 3
6-tie SSD - 3
11-tie Windsor Legion - 2
11-tie Queen City - 2
11-tie Sherbrooke - 2
11-tie Ocean Athletics - 2
11-tie London Runner - 2
16. Pacific Athletics - 1

Improvement: 2009 Score - 2008 Score
1. PIH: 32 - 8 = +24
2. Sherbrooke: 26 - 5 = +21
3. Edmonton Thunder: 81 - 63 = +18
4-tie UTTC: 50 - 35 = +15
4-tie SSD: 16 - 1 = +15
6. Ocean Athletics: 18 - 6 = +12
7. U of C Athletics: 27 - 18 = +9
8. London Runner: 14 - 9 = +5
9-tie Newmarket: 31 - 29 = +2
9-tie Physi-Kult: 27 - 25 = +2
11-tie Pacific Athletics: 14 - 13 = +1
11-tie NOC: 29 - 28 = +1
13. Queen City: 30 - 30 = 0
14. Windsor Legion: 37 - 47 = -10
15. Speed River: 57 - 74 = -17
16. TOC: 22 - 59 = -37

Edit: Windsor Legion -10, not +10

[SI]

More analysis by Ian Reid and posted to TC:

Annually post-Nationals I score the meet to compare CIS produced runners with those from the NCAA. Usually, despite many top runners heading south for school, those from the CIS end up winning the Nationals meet. Several past year's scores can be found in the TC archives.

Reasons for this could be many: the very top runners (Sullivan, Brannen, etc) are on a pro-cycle where an intense fall season just isn't in their plans; NCAA burns out athletes so they don't carry on post-collegiately; NCAA athletes often end up living permanently down south and just don't keep up their ties to the Canadian scene. Plus many others that make good fodder for debate.

This year I've scored four teams for the senior men (someone else is free to do the totals for senior women):

NCAA: all current or former NCAA runners.
CIS: all current or former CIS runners.
CIS_now: athletes currently competing for a CIS team.
CIS_grads: post-collegians from a CIS program.

I don't believe there were enough athletes to score an NCAA_now team.

There's a slight fudge in that in the interest of nationalism, I lump NAIA schools SFU and UBC in with the CIS as this is more of a Canada/US competition. For those few athletes (Jim Finlayson) who have run both NCAA and CIS (Michigan and Victoria), I also lump in with CIS, although that doesn't really affect the numbers this year.

Scores are as follows:

CIS: 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, (11, 13) = 23
NCAA: 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, (14, 18) = 34
CIS_grads: 2, 9, 11, 13, 15, (17) = 50
CIS_now: 3, 4, 16, 21, 23 (25) = 67

Interesting this year the impact that current CIS athletes had on the race, placing several in the top 10 (although Genest isn't running varsity this year).


The post is also a follow-up to this:

tnfnorth.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=5066&page=3#65203

[Chris Moulton]

Interesting stuff, Steve and Martin. I would think Alex should be able to score for the CIS_now team, if he was in the NCAA and redshirting which is basically what he is doing he would likely score for the NCAA_now team if there was one.

[SI]

Ian's rules say no, he shouldn't score for CIS_Now (or NCAA_Now were he redshirting).

His whole point is to highlight schools/programs/coaches who support or at least allow their collegiate athletes to participate in a non-collegiate event, despite any potential impacts it might have on their collegiate season.

Genest isn't in the position of having to extend his season post-CIS or NCAA champs and cut in to his recovery/preparations leading to indoor CIS or NCAA champs.

[Chris Moulton]

Makes sense to me.

[oldbones]

I love that this myth continues to be brought up; the jealous child syndrome.

"NCAA burns out athletes so they don't carry on post-collegiately".

I chuckle as I recall an interview with CBC and Kevin Sullivan (in 1992 or 96 I believe) where the sock-puppet commentator asked the same question (obviously crafted as he had zero knowledge as to what he was asking) "So Kevin how do you respond to the critics that claim you are being overworked by Ron Warhurst to save his job". At this point Kevin was recovering from an achillies injury I believe.

Maybe it is not the NCAA but the near zero lack of opportunity that the "running profession" offers ... why work my ass off in near poverty to then not be selected for a national team (that I have to pay my way for in some cases) because of bogus rules and standards. There is simply no monetary incentive!

I will hazard the guess that the "drop out rate" between the NCAA and CIS runners is statistically about the same. As we see throughout age-class progression only the best move on ... the others ... go and do something different.

A very talented athlete I was lucky to know was offered 3 scholarships in the US in swimming, running and hockey ... as he stated ... "there is no money or future in swimming or running ... too much competition and zero support".

The real question we should be asking is how do we keep these "drop outs" involved in the sport as "community support" (ie. coaching, officials, administrators, etc.)

A tanget I know ... sorry

[coachc]

"Maybe it is not the NCAA but the near zero lack of opportunity that the "running profession" offers ... why work my ass off in near poverty to then not be selected for a national team (that I have to pay my way for in some cases) because of bogus rules and standards. There is simply no monetary incentive!"


In my opinion that's probably the biggest single reason why so many of our top runners don't pursue running at a high level after university.

[oldster]

Dec 4, 2009 19:47:00 GMT -5 coachc said:

"Maybe it is not the NCAA but the near zero lack of opportunity that the "running profession" offers ... why work my ass off in near poverty to then not be selected for a national team (that I have to pay my way for in some cases) because of bogus rules and standards. There is simply no monetary incentive!"


In my opinion that's probably the biggest single reason why so many of our top runners don't pursue running at a high level after university.

Who actually made the statement quoted? I actually agree with it, although only partly with the idea that is it the main reason our post-collegians are giving up. There has never really been any money in this sport for anyone but very top few-- and even here, it depends on what event group we're talking about. Top distance runners, for instance, have always been able to support themselves better than, say, top long jumpers. And yet, in spite of very high levels of age-class participation, right up through the collegiate ranks, we now have much less depth in many areas than in the 1980s. Although, granted, more difficult and arcane qualification standards and procedures, even for second tier events like the Commonwealth and Pan Am Games and now WXC, and, of course, "self-funding", have served to "kill the dream" for many potential post-collegiate elites in this country.

P.S. Even the term "self-funding" is the worst kind of mealy-mouthed, bureaucratic euphemism. The concept of "funding" implies an outside or collective source of financial support. For instance, we wouldn't describe our weekly grocery purchases as the "self-funding" of our eating. We don't give ourselves money when we pay for things ourselves. As soon as we're paying for something ourselves, we're no longer talking about "funding" at all; we're talking about buying. "Self-funded" really means "user-paid". For most of our national Athletics teams, we have a "user pays" system. And the rationale behind "user-pays" systems is that the user should pay because he/she is the only beneficiary of the service. And, surely, this isn't the true in the case of Canadians going abroad to represent the nation in international competition.

[thinskinned]

Dec 4, 2009 11:01:19 GMT -5 oldbones said:

"NCAA burns out athletes so they don't carry on post-collegiately".

Maybe it's not burn-out. Maybe it's the realization that "I'm a dime a dozen", really not that good & highly unlikely to become a world beater.

I attended a Canadian university but most definitely wish I had gone south & had my ass handed to me &/or developed more quickly so I could truly evaluate where I stood in the world of distance running. I very much doubt it would have changed my outcome/persuit post-university. But this is more a function of my personality & what running means to me....as well as being slight delusional & an eternal optimist.

[journeyman]

Dec 5, 2009 17:36:44 GMT -5 thinskinned said:

Dec 4, 2009 11:01:19 GMT -5 oldbones said:

"NCAA burns out athletes so they don't carry on post-collegiately".

Maybe it's not burn-out. Maybe it's the realization that "I'm a dime a dozen", really not that good & highly unlikely to become a world beater.

If that's how a runner feels after going the NCAA route (and that's probably an accurate assessment of standing for most collegiate runners), then how would CIS help? The athlete might not realise that he or she is a dime a dozen, and perhaps would, in that blissful ignorance, keep going and actually become a world beater? That's a nice story, but I doubt it would happen. Awareness is usually the best option.

[journeyman]

Dec 5, 2009 11:25:36 GMT -5 oldster said:

And the rationale behind "user-pays" systems is that the user should pay because he/she is the only beneficiary of the service. And, surely, this isn't the true in the case of Canadians going abroad to represent the nation in international competition.

I'm sure that's exactly the reason there's not much funding for our sport, actually. The key is that there is no *financial* benefit to any *sponsor.* Of course, you would think a national sport organization would recognize the intrinsic social value of international sporting competitions. I find it hard to blame anyone who decides that the banging of his or her head against the wall required to be an international calibre distance runner in Canada is not worth it. I'm sure it is not the hard training that brings them down, but the lack of societal recognition. I'm sure there is some Marx in there somewhere, though I don't know enough to say. Alienation maybe?

[nigelsharp]

Personally, I went to the States for a multitude of reasons. The top reasons: Having an organized outdoor season, getting all trips paid in full with meal money, not wanting to be running the same races in senior year of college that I was racing in freshman year of high school, cost of course, and the level of competition down here is absolutely unreal, you know that every race you enter is going to be a fast one... There are many other reasons but those are just some of mine. I feel that the NCAA is a better route to go to just because it's a place where you can compete against the world's best e.g. Galen Rupp, David McNeill, German Fernandez.

[pmac]

Dec 7, 2009 15:32:27 GMT -5 nigelsharp said:

I feel that the NCAA is a better route to go to just because it's a place where you can compete against the world's best e.g. Galen Rupp, David McNeill, German Fernandez.

I'm shocked that you declined your scholarship offer to the University of Nairobi.

Incidentally, Sam Chelenga doesn't compete in the NCAA to race the best in the world. If that were the case, he'd be back home slogging it out in Kenya.

[ronb]

Wow....
The last several posts on this thread are very revealing. No wonder we have a huge problem in keeping runners in Canada, and then trying to keep going after University, to be the best that they can be... And to value that, without doing the whole "dime a dozen" crap, or whether they are socially or financially supported while exploring their personal potential, or whether they are going to be a world-beater... Maybe this is all part of the fallout of the OWN THE PODIUM crapola......either win a medal, or stay home.....Extremely damaging marketing, for the vast majority of our Canadian athletes, and even more damaging for our kids, who of course have no idea whether they have PODIUM potential or not, but should be encouraged to keep trying...Disgraceful message to a huge % of our athlete pool, while a few might thrive, on a very temporary scale.

[oldbones]

Unfortunately it is the cold hard reality of the state of athletics today in Canada! Athletics holds little to no opportunity other than maybe getting a free education in the states and free travel and fun. If you have not shown your stripes by the end of your university years it is really game over (a sad but true reality).

Competitive athletics is a brief interlude in one's journey in life and moreso now an exercise in futility when our own nation provides zero support.

Maybe we should move the entire athletics machine into the army ... then there would be funding!

Dec 7, 2009 22:39:18 GMT -5 ronb said:

Wow....
The last several posts on this thread are very revealing. No wonder we have a huge problem in keeping runners in Canada, and then trying to keep going after University, to be the best that they can be... And to value that, without doing the whole "dime a dozen" crap, or whether they are socially or financially supported while exploring their personal potential, or whether they are going to be a world-beater... Maybe this is all part of the fallout of the OWN THE PODIUM crapola......either win a medal, or stay home.....Extremely damaging marketing, for the vast majority of our Canadian athletes, and even more damaging for our kids, who of course have no idea whether they have PODIUM potential or not, but should be encouraged to keep trying...Disgraceful message to a huge % of our athlete pool, while a few might thrive, on a very temporary scale.

[ronb]

So, let's see if I've got this straight. You are 22/23/24, have finished your first degree at University in either Canada or the USA. You are a pretty good runner, and running is a very enjoyable part of your life. You know you could run much faster with a few more years of development, but you are not on a fast track to being an Olympic medallist. So you should quit running, and get on with the rest of your life? Is that really what some of you are saying, or some slight variation thereof? If so, I really dispute that line of thinking.

[benjamin]

My understanding was you should either own the podium or not bother showing up.

[saskatchewan]

I would respectfully disagree with pretty much everything in your post oldbones. How is it "an exercise in futility" just b/c the government doesn't fully fund every trip?

There are 168hrs in every week, and most careers only look for 45-60 of them for 48 or so weeks a year. If an individual wants to combine family, career and athletics, it can be done.

Athletics can provide you with a well balanced life, it can facilitate that desire to stay in competitive sports, it can give you something to talk about with collegues at work, it can help you meet new and interesting people, and for some it can still lead them to the top of the sport. Dig up an old article of Steve Jones in October 2004 (The Runner), taking his holidays from his job in the RAF as a full-time airplane mechanic (doing manual work 8hrs a day and fitting in family and running around it) to come over to Chicago and set the world record.

I'd encourage any 22 yr old with a little talent to dream a little and keep all their opportunities open. Who knows where it will lead them. There is certainly a lot more to life then finding a career, and you can run and find a good career and a family at the same time if you want to do the work.

The world is full of possibilities to those who believe the glass is at least half full!

My apologies to some if this post wasn't defeatist and full of doom and gloom

[robkitz]

Was there some point in the past when athletics in Canada was highly lucrative? Or does the decline in the depth of Canadian distance running have nothing to do with money?

[thinskinned]

Dec 8, 2009 12:29:29 GMT -5 ronb said:

So, let's see if I've got this straight. You are 22/23/24, have finished your first degree at University in either Canada or the USA. You are a pretty good runner, and running is a very enjoyable part of your life. You know you could run much faster with a few more years of development, but you are not on a fast track to being an Olympic medallist. So you should quit running, and get on with the rest of your life? Is that really what some of you are saying, or some slight variation thereof? If so, I really dispute that line of thinking.

Ron, here's something for you to think about;

You had very successful middle & long distance athletes on both the male & female side in univeristy. It's a well know fact (I'm sure they were aware of this) that middle distance & distance athletes don't reach their full potential until early 30's.
Now, how many of your female athletes were still competing at age 30?
How many male athletes were still competing at age 30?
Why is there such a discrepancy?

If the males HAD continued on what would have been the "rewards" for them other than gaining new PR's?

On a slight sidenote; yes, for some the pursuit on new PR's & other running satisfactions is enough to drive the desire to train & compete hard. But the number of truly or reasonably talented athletes with that sort of genetic make up/drive is few. And they are easy to spot at age 40.

[robkitz]

Clarification: I think that funding for athletics is good and helpful. I think that we should all push AC to use their funding to better serve their mandate of supporting Canadian athletics.

But, I don't think athletes can use lack of funding as an excuse for quitting or for not being competitive. Distance running is full of examples of athletes who achieved greatness with little or no financial support. I don't think the East Africans are beating us because they are rolling in money.

eg., Sports in Australia have shown some great improvements, largely thanks to increased government funding over the last ~20 years. But I'd bet on Herb Elliot against any modern Australian miler. This in spite of the fact that Elliot was an unpaid and unfunded amateur.

[robkitz]

Dec 8, 2009 13:47:37 GMT -5 thinskinned said:

On a slight sidenote; yes, for some the pursuit on new PR's & other running satisfactions is enough to drive the desire to train & compete hard. But the number of truly or reasonably talented athletes with that sort of genetic make up/drive is few. And they are easy to spot at age 40.

I'm curious what you think it is that motivates most runners to compete. If it's not "PR's & other running satisfactions" then what is it? I would think that, rather than being rare, the drive to pursue "running satisfactions" would be an essential attribute of a truly talented athlete.

[thinskinned]

Keep in mind that my comments are relative only to the level of athlete that has the choice of either going to the US on scholarship or staying in Canada....i.e. how the discussion began.

So then the answer to your question about what might motivate them is:

Making national teams, making an Olympic team, carding, prize money, sponsorship, scholarship....etc.

All these don't necessarily require PR's or any satisfaction from the actual running part. And no it doesn't apply to "MOST runners

[oldster]

Dec 8, 2009 12:29:29 GMT -5 ronb said:

So, let's see if I've got this straight. You are 22/23/24, have finished your first degree at University in either Canada or the USA. You are a pretty good runner, and running is a very enjoyable part of your life. You know you could run much faster with a few more years of development, but you are not on a fast track to being an Olympic medallist. So you should quit running, and get on with the rest of your life? Is that really what some of you are saying, or some slight variation thereof? If so, I really dispute that line of thinking.

I think an athlete's decision to continue or not is ultimately a personal one; but, there are broad sets of conditions under which athletes are more inclined to continue and under which they are more inclined to quit, all other personal factors being equal. In order to promote depth in this sport, and thereby higher standards at the top, we need to reinforce the conditions under which post-collegians are more inclined to continue (and we are now at an historic low where many of these things are concerned):


-an informed and sensible approach to long term athlete development in the age-class ranks.

-affordable and accessible training groups coached by people who understand world of competitive senior distance running (Guelph/Speed River is the model here).

-some kind of domestic competition program.

-clearer and more accessible opportunities for developmental-level national team participation (e.g. Commonwealth, Pan Am, FISU Games, and other bi-or tri-national meetings).

The first two of these things can be provided locally, with a little passion, commitment, and tolerance for a lower-middle class style of life. The second two, however, require some leadership from the top; which is, sadly, not forthcoming in these delusionally voluntarist "own the podium" times. Words and other moral inducements are never going to create more "excellence" in the absence of greater numbers of people at peak-age willing to pursue the sport. At this rate, I see our talent base drying up and disappearing in many event areas of this sport within the next 10-15 years. Our leadership, which has stated clearly that it's mandate is purely "senior elite excellence", really doesn't seem to understand the kind of broader environment out of which this actually comes, or how, with its limited resources, it can best contribute to supporting it. That, or it is compelled by structural pressures to think only in terms of the current budget cycle.

And a message to post-collegians, or soon to be post-collegians, pondering their future in the sport: You may not fully understand this now, but, when you're older, you will NEVER regret having spent a few years trying to realize your full potential, no matter what your non-running peers may be saying or doing, or what level you ultimately reach. I have never met anyone who did, and I've met very many who regretted NOT taking a shot. Furthermore, there are ways of pursuing the sport without putting your future in other respects completely on hold. Lots of working people have very serious hobbies. If you're thinking of quitting running in terms of "getting on with your life", then you have already lost your passion, and it's probably too late for you. (However, you are very likely to one day regret not seeing your running as part of the life you "wanted to get on with". Young people often go on to find out that many of the trappings that they used to think of as "real life" can actually be pretty unsatisfying, or else not something they really needed to quit running to enjoy, and begin to regret not valuing their running life more.) But, if you desperately want to run, but are wondering whether you'll be able to manage, I urge you to take the plunge and make do. You will not regret the decision, and you'll get much more than you give up, if you have to really give up anything important at all.

[mpd]

I'm typing this from a phone so I appologize for all the mistakes...

Kitz, I hear what you're saying but it is financially VERY different to live day to day in east Africa. Particularly for middle distance running, where getting to the right competitions is very important, money is a huge issue!!

What I don't understand is why 22 year olds who show a decent amoun of talent in university aren't encourage to do grad school?! I think it's somewhat strange when a 25 or 26 year old is only training in order to get the rare PB, especially when it is a long shot at making a world championship team. Doesn't seem like wisest way to spend what can be the most productive years of ones life...

With the amount of academic scholarships and programs like quest for gold, it seems quite reasonable to train and study at a very high level; particularly for the athlete that is already in a university based system and presumably enjoys what he/she is doing!


At the entrance of the athletic centre at u of t we have this huge board of all the student-athletes that have been Olympians. If I recall, 2004 & 2008 were the only two Olympic games in the last 100 years with no Olympians IN athletics. Whatever the reason is for the absence of track athletes in the last two games, it tells me that academics and athletics is VERY compatible.

[oldbones]

Fair points however I think the world of competitive distance running (especially for marathon) has moved light years beyond Steve Jones and the 2:08 mark.

Centre's of Excellence such as that in Guelph and the Al Sal group in Oregon is just the start of what it now takes to be merely competitive on the current world stage.

We want to "own the podium" but we also have to be realistic in the level of effort it takes to get in the elite percentile.

I don't think it is realistic today to believe we can have a deep system that produces podium candidates (through age-class to "professional status") and expect people to train twice a day, have a life, love the family, have friends, work 8 hours a day, goto phyisio (other professional services required), travel on weekdays and weekends (i.e. miss work frequently because of "hobby"); just my opinion.

I have met many "super humans" in TF and XC that are mega multitaskers ... but they are not the norm. You explain this job description to a large majority of the youth today and they will laugh in your face. The nobility of the sport (and love for it) is not enough to attract people to the sport or keep them in it ...

Running takes sacrifice ... running at elite levels takes even more ... but also assistance, support systems, $$, etc.

Where is the line drawn to "dream a little" ... e.g. a 1500m runner age 22 running 3:43 ... does he dream a little for a few more years? How about a 29 year old running 3:38? Recent example of Chris Lukesic ...

The decline over the last 15-20 years in Canada is testament to this ...

What other professional sports (equal to the demands that running places on an individual) demand that you may have to hold down a day job yet expect the podium?

How many elite level world competitive athletes today have day jobs? The days of old are just that (Herb = anomaly).

Dec 8, 2009 13:30:38 GMT -5 saskatchewan said:

I would respectfully disagree with pretty much everything in your post oldbones. How is it "an exercise in futility" just b/c the government doesn't fully fund every trip?

There are 168hrs in every week, and most careers only look for 45-60 of them for 48 or so weeks a year. If an individual wants to combine family, career and athletics, it can be done.

Athletics can provide you with a well balanced life, it can facilitate that desire to stay in competitive sports, it can give you something to talk about with collegues at work, it can help you meet new and interesting people, and for some it can still lead them to the top of the sport. Dig up an old article of Steve Jones in October 2004 (The Runner), taking his holidays from his job in the RAF as a full-time airplane mechanic (doing manual work 8hrs a day and fitting in family and running around it) to come over to Chicago and set the world record.

I'd encourage any 22 yr old with a little talent to dream a little and keep all their opportunities open. Who knows where it will lead them. There is certainly a lot more to life then finding a career, and you can run and find a good career and a family at the same time if you want to do the work.

The world is full of possibilities to those who believe the glass is at least half full!

My apologies to some if this post wasn't defeatist and full of doom and gloom

[pmac]

Dec 8, 2009 15:16:55 GMT -5 oldbones said:

Fair points however I think the world of competitive distance running (especially for marathon) has moved light years beyond Steve Jones and the 2:08 mark.

I'm gonna jump on this right away. Last time I checked the Canadian record was "only" 2:10, and the A-standard was right around 2:11.

Lukesic is a horrible example to support your point by the way. He ran 3:34 in his early twenties while still in college, and went pro early with a six-figure contract. If you read his recent retirement post (I'll let someone else google the link) he notes that he was running best when he had other things in his life than just running. It's when he made running the only thing of importance in his life that it all went down hill.

I'm all for support systems for athletes, and I believe that international competition absolutely needs to funded to better encourage our top men and women to compete. But please don't tell me Steve Jones was an anomaly. Sure he was talented, but he's not the only guy ever to work hard and run even harder.

Ron Hill, another British marathoner, was a chemical engineer and got his PhD in textile chemistry all while finding time to run 2:09 on top of three Olympic appearances. Frank Shorter somehow found time to get a degree in law between his two Olympic appearances. And the list goes on and on. The American runners in the 70's were committed to "poverty" (see Steve Prefontaine) unless they worked a decent job, because the AAU certainly wasn't gonna help them out.

Bottom line is, if you love the sport, you're gonna stick with it, and you don't need necessarily need government handouts to do it.

[SI]

Dec 8, 2009 13:30:38 GMT -5 saskatchewan said:

IThere are 168hrs in every week, and most careers only look for 45-60 of them for 48 or so weeks a year. If an individual wants to combine family, career and athletics, it can be done.

Easily. Ask MattMc.

[SI]

Dec 8, 2009 13:38:39 GMT -5 robkitz said:

Was there some point in the past when athletics in Canada was highly lucrative?

No.

Dec 8, 2009 13:38:39 GMT -5 robkitz said:

Or does the decline in the depth of Canadian distance running have nothing to do with money?

That and the lack of opportunities are an excuse.

[SI]

Dec 8, 2009 14:09:48 GMT -5 robkitz said:

I would think that, rather than being rare, the drive to pursue "running satisfactions" would be an essential attribute of a truly talented athlete.

That should be enough. Anything beyond that is a bonus.