|
|
Post by Linc on Apr 1, 2010 12:03:12 GMT -5
|
|
wind
New Member
Posts: 16 
|
Post by wind on Apr 2, 2010 7:31:36 GMT -5
This seems to me like a very dramatic change. Basically you have to now be world class to get carded. It seems that once you are top 12 in the world, you will be ablt to get a sponsorship, be one of the people to get extra support from the COC and now you have to be there already to get carding.
How will this impact the broke and hungry post collegiates? I do not think they will be able to afford to train full time without any help unless they have a very supportive family or something of that sort.
|
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Apr 2, 2010 8:22:44 GMT -5
"Recipients of Development cards must be based in Canadian training environments."
So if you've got a great environment in the NCAA system for 5 years, with a coach you understand and trust... you have to move home to get the Development Card?
|
|
Roy
Junior Member
Posts: 75 
|
Post by Roy on Apr 2, 2010 9:19:32 GMT -5
Without reading the document too carefully, it looks like you need 'C' standard for a Senior or NCAA card, and 'D' standard for a developmental card.
Marathon standards aren't too bad, but other events are much tougher.
A few C/D examples for men (25 years old):
800: 1:45.80 / 1:46.42
1500: 3:38.13 / 3:41.76
5000: 13:22.69 / 13:22.78
10000: 28:06.32 / 28.21.95
Marathon: 2:14:20
Am I reading this correctly?
|
|
|
|
Post by lcarson on Apr 2, 2010 12:22:49 GMT -5
In my opinion, Developmental Carding money should definately support Canadian based athletes to encourage young aspiring athletes (role models) to stay in their communities and inspire future generations of track & field athletes. If you go South of the Border, where is the contribution and mentorship for furure Canadian Track & Field athletes in our communities?
|
|
oldbones
Full Member
And so it goes ...
Posts: 244
|
Post by oldbones on Apr 2, 2010 17:06:33 GMT -5
Agreed, "our system" is not a developmental platform for talent to prosper and go live/stay in the USA (with that being said of course we have to provide comparable opportunities at home or you cannot fault talent for leaving).
|
|
|
|
Post by Angus Macaulay on Apr 2, 2010 17:06:44 GMT -5
based on last summers performances i listed: Event: # men w/ D standard or better 800m : one 1500m : six 5km : none 10km : one marathon: not listed with these results link here: www.athleticsvideos.com/Rankings/2009_CANADIAN_MEN_OUTDOOR_RANKINGS.pdfI forget how this works. Do they always give away all the cards they say are available? I also know that performances have to be repeated up to 3 times for carding eligibility (shorter distances and maybe only once or twice for 5k 10k marathon). A lot of athletes will have trouble finding meets that are going to hit those times. I think of our 10k Men flying all over to find a hot 10km before the olympics to hit A standard. I think it's a good idea to have a Canadian training group requirement etc. If we are going to fund national centers, we might as well have incentive to our high performing athletes to train at them and propagate the group creating a positive, high end training environment. High performing groups will likely attract more money too. performance = attention = money in a lot of cases these days. The problem i see is that developmental carding doesn't really target developmental athletes. All of a sudden you are knocking people who have had A/B carding and international standards and experience, back to C/D carding. Maybe there are definitions to carding standards i haven't seen but this is what i loosely understood to be true: A carding for those who are at worlds/olympics - cool B carding for those who are close (international type athletes pan-am or commonwealth games level) C level funding i thought was kind of like an NCAA card ( a little less money, but support for athletes at B level who are still in school in the states) D younger athletes on the verge of their first major/minor games teams Those are generalities of my previous understandings Interesting to see what happens when this summer's track season heats up. Some will be motivated to get after it harder, while others might find those numbers just a little out of reach. |
|
|
|
Post by sctotsco on Apr 4, 2010 11:33:30 GMT -5
Just a quick chart I ran across on a different set of forums. Based on Age 26 C standards. www3.sympatico.ca/rick.watkins/Also, what about repeat performances? I can't find anything which mentions them. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Apr 5, 2010 7:01:57 GMT -5
How will this impact the broke and hungry post collegiates? I do not think they will be able to afford to train full time without any help unless they have a very supportive family or something of that sort. Or a job, maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 5, 2010 14:47:13 GMT -5
In my opinion, Developmental Carding money should definately support Canadian based athletes to encourage young aspiring athletes (role models) to stay in their communities and inspire future generations of track & field athletes. If you go South of the Border, where is the contribution and mentorship for furure Canadian Track & Field athletes in our communities? You can't inspire future generations unless you live in Canada? |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 5, 2010 15:07:40 GMT -5
You can't inspire future generations unless you live in Canada? Not sure if I'm putting words in lcarson's mouth, but I gather the objection might be that if you are training somewhere in the US, there's no opportunity to directly influence young Canadian athletes who might, for example, train with the same club. We can all be inspired to a degree by how the Perdita's and krs1's perform, but by choosing to train abroad you are not around to directly influence young developing Canadians. I would gather the rationale would be to encourage homegrown concentrations of talent around which we can build some momentum. I'm not sure whether I buy that particular argument or not, but I can see how it could be made. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 5, 2010 15:26:02 GMT -5
You can't inspire future generations unless you live in Canada? Not sure if I'm putting words in lcarson's mouth, but I gather the objection might be that if you are training somewhere in the US, there's no opportunity to directly influence young Canadian athletes who might, for example, train with the same club. We can all be inspired to a degree by how the Perdita's and krs1's perform, but by choosing to train abroad you are not around to directly influence young developing Canadians. I would gather the rationale would be to encourage homegrown concentrations of talent around which we can build some momentum. I'm not sure whether I buy that particular argument or not, but I can see how it could be made. I do see what the point is, but I disagree that just because you live in Canada somehow you should get development carding over a athlete with better performances living abroad. At the end of the day, carding is supposed to be an investment in the athletes who have the best chance on reaching top-8 & podium finishes in the future, not a reward for staying in Canada |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 5, 2010 16:23:45 GMT -5
... carding is supposed to be an investment in the athletes who have the best chance on reaching top-8 & podium finishes in the future, ... Well I suppose that's one way of looking at it, focussing on the individual athlete's development. On the other hand, if you consider that maybe the objective is to spend money encouraging the development of a system for athlete development, creating an incentive to spend development money at home makes sense. The more I think about it, the more I like this idea, frankly. |
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Apr 5, 2010 19:27:57 GMT -5
I actually think they should go one step further and require ALL carded athletes to train at an NTC.
Carding should be aimed at developing centers of coaching and athletic excellence in Canada. I cannot think of another government investment that allows those who receive it to live out of the country (maybe arts grants? but certainly not anything in the science and tech R & D fields). Do other countries have similar criteria? I know many of the other sport governing bodies in Canada do.
While KRS1 has a valid point that one can inspire from abroad-- the benefit is marginal when compared to the trickle down effect top athletes have who live and train at home.
One needs to look no further than the Speed River Group. They now have a cadre of 4-6 carded level athletes and innumerable up and comers. This heirarchical model with junior and university athletes feeding the top tier is one that should be emulated. The active examples of Coolsaet, Gillis et al are surely invaluable for the athletes who train with the group.
You can't take for granted how valuable it is to have a role model around day in-day out to show you how to get to the top.
I am sure the FSU athletes Kevin is involved with get the benefit of this (I hope Matt Leeder is one of them). I am not sure we should be funding Kevin's training abroad with taxpayer dollars.
This is certainly not an attack on Kevin, or his choice to train in the US. If an athlete feels this is the optimal situation, I favor that they should do so without the benefit of carding money.
Allowing carded athletes to train wherever they choose may be a strategy of short term gain (better short term performance), I believe it is at the expense of long term development (stunting of the growth of the domestic NTCs).
MM
|
|
|
|
Post by abrown on Apr 5, 2010 20:27:11 GMT -5
Valid points, but aren't science and R&D grants a little bit different than professional athletics? In research, any discovery or innovation you make will be credited to the institution you are working for, be it a company or an educational institution. There is little or no "credit" given to a researchers home country. With track and field, carded athletes, even if they are training away from home, represent their country at the Olympics and other international events.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldlegs on Apr 5, 2010 20:27:32 GMT -5
I have to agree with MattMc here. There are few if any grants in other government endeavours that aid people who live and work outside of Canada. Having worked in the TV and film industry for over 15 years I can assure you that all tax credits and grants are directed to labour performed by Canadians living and paying tax in Canada. (We are audited often and closely). I could have Mike Myers or Jim Carrey in one of my films and they would not be eligible for any benefits, despite their ``Canadian-ness`` and what they ostensibly bring the younger generation of Canadians in terms of inspiration.
|
|
|
|
Post by speedgoggles on Apr 5, 2010 21:33:26 GMT -5
flamewar, plz.
|
|
|
|
Post by feens on Apr 5, 2010 22:55:09 GMT -5
I actually think they should go one step further and require ALL carded athletes to train at an NTC. One needs to look no further than the Speed River Group. They now have a cadre of 4-6 carded level athletes and innumerable up and comers. This heirarchical model with junior and university athletes feeding the top tier is one that should be emulated. The active examples of Coolsaet, Gillis et al are surely invaluable for the athletes who train with the group. Quick question (and I may be wrong here), but for some reason I seem to recall reading that Speed River technically is no longer listed/funded as an NTC (which I think would be silly anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Apr 6, 2010 4:18:34 GMT -5
The Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) allows post-doctorate grants (if successful) to be taken outside of Canada. I think they see the development of international collaboration (which good science needs these days to be truly world-class) and also the potential upscaling of bringing back "new" cutting-edge techniques, methods and approaches in science to Canada as reasons why they allow successful post-doc fellowships to be taken oustide of Canada.
Much the same above could be made for elite sport...
I know the cutting -edge science ideas and approaches that I developed in Maastricht University while on my NSERC Post-Doc, as well as huge amount of exclusively sport science research I am able to continue to do while abroad is directly and positively impacting back to the Canadian athletes that I work with. There are very few reserach places in the world that I could do what I do now, and really be on the nerve of cutting-edge.
I have also learned so, so much by being abroad in approaches to coaching and training (not that we don't know anything in Canada, in fact, I have learned to better appreciate that we have some bloody great coaching and physio/medicine and chirio support in Canada-- some of the top people in the world). But, instead, seeing the Dutch system, the Swiss system and the Ethiopian system/approach up close and first hand, has certainly allowed me to think in different ways.
MattMc- if you were stilll training at the elite level, would you be willing to move out of Toronto to Victoria to get carding? Even at the cost of having maybe a better coach (for you), who had been with you, and developed you?
Tough questions all around. Unlike the true 'teamsports', Track is a team of individuals (minus the relays). Should we not do what is best for the individuals? (as long as the individual can realize what is best for them??-- which is a whole other kettle of fish).
|
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Apr 6, 2010 8:40:16 GMT -5
This thread is hilarious.
"Hey, let's pull athletes out of their US collegiate environment and force them to come home and train alone!"
"Hurr, that is good idea. Or they can move to a NTC in a new city with a new coach, durr. This will not be forcing a major change on them for no reason, durr. And at the NTC they will probably only have a few people to train with, hurr."
"OMG, I've lived and trained in Ontario all my life, like, this is the only way to win!"
"Yes! Canada can't lure track athletes on the merits, so let's withhold funding from those who want to leave!"
Good luck with that guys. You ought to take away the NCAA carding as well. And ban any athlete who goes to school in the US from future Canada teams. And I'd certainly withhold, on a monthly basis, carding from athletes who go South in the winter or Europe in the summer. I mean, you guys have development all worked out, you should punish those who leave...
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 6, 2010 8:42:20 GMT -5
(1) The Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) allows post-doctorate grants (if successful) to be taken outside of Canada. I think they see the development of international collaboration (which good science needs these days to be truly world-class) and also the potential upscaling of bringing back "new" cutting-edge techniques, methods and approaches in science to Canada as reasons why they allow successful post-doc fellowships to be taken oustide of Canada. (2) Should we not do what is best for the individuals? (as long as the individual can realize what is best for them??-- which is a whole other kettle of fish). (1) That's all well and good if you bring your new knowledge back to Canada. (2) Well that seems to me to be the key question... should we focus on individuals, or focus on a system that fosters development of individuals within a healthy homegrown group training environment? I don't have the experience/background personally to know what's the better answer. A fair number of our best athletes (Sully, Perdita, Bairu as examples) train stateside, so there's clearly something to be said for seeking the best individual setting independent of homegrown coaching and training groups. But we're still in the midst of a development crisis in athletics, IMHO, and maybe this is one aspect of the problem. I'd be interested to hear from the oldtimers who've been around Canadian athletics for multiple decades weigh in on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by oldlegs on Apr 6, 2010 9:29:47 GMT -5
A few things, and feel free not to answer if you wish:
Stellar--I have no doubt your work and experience will benefit all of humanity down the line, as many scientific and medical advances do. But where do you pay your taxes, and what is stated residency? I am guessing you still remit to the Cdn government, which means you still keep a stated residence in Canada. If this is not the case, this would be an anomaly to most government granting agencies. As well, (and I speak to this because I am familiar with the granting agency from my 3 years sitting on the Board of Governors of a major university) I suspect the stated goal of the NSERC is based on you bringing those skill back to Canada, not getting the education and experience and bolting. Of course, the Canadian government can't stop talent from leaving, but they can stop the funding spigot.
Krs1-Where do you pay your taxes, and what is your stated residency? Again it is clear you have represented Canada well over the years, but as for continuing carding money for athletes who keep citizenship versus residency (or paying back of taxes),why would it be in the Canadian government's interests to keep that money allocated towards Canadians living and paying taxes elsewhere? The government limits "Canadian foreigners" in this regard in almost every field of endeavour from R & D initiatives, to military procurement, to providing musicians in Canada 35% of the playing time on the radio (only if they are direct residents--too bad Bryan Adams). Is this protectionist? Of course it is. But it is "their" money, and the stated policies of the government in this regard have been clear--to build and create programs and jobs in Canada, for Canadians. This is not to say, we should stop top runners (or anybody) from living elsewhere, just that it is a reasonable action to take from a taxpayer's perspective.
notCanadian-- I don't think anyone here is saying don't leave to advance your education (or running) in the NCAA, but if you choose not to come back, why should Canadians be subsidizing you to do so?
Last point- let's take this argument down to the provincial level, to the Quest for Gold funding in Ontario or Athletics Manitoba grants to athletes. Why would it be in the Manitoba's government's interest to fund an athlete who lives in Calgary? It might be better for the athlete, but if the goal of Athletics Manitoba is to support athletics in their home province, why would they fund a former Manitoba resident who now lives elsewhere? They don't. If you want the money, you play (live) by their rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Apr 6, 2010 9:47:52 GMT -5
notcanadian, thanks for the mature and thoughtful contribution to the discussion. Regarding your points below: This thread is hilarious. "Hey, let's pull athletes out of their US collegiate environment and force them to come home and train alone!" No one is forcing them to do anything. We are simply proposing that a condition of federal sport funding be affiliation with an NTC. If they choose to bypass the funding (as I am sure many high level performers would who have sponsorhip $$ that would allow them to do so)-- great. That is another NTC carding spot for another athlete. "Hurr, that is good idea. Or they can move to a NTC in a new city with a new coach, durr. This will not be forcing a major change on them for no reason, durr. And at the NTC they will probably only have a few people to train with, hurr." This is really a cyclical argument isn't it. If you don't fund/ support the NTCs, there is noone to train with. NTCs of course, must be supported with top level coaching and supoprt in order to function properly. "OMG, I've lived and trained in Ontario all my life, like, this is the only way to win!" Not sure what the point above is getting at-- it seems like a non sequitar. I was simply using Guelph/ Speed River as an exmaple. I could easily have used Victoria. "Yes! Canada can't lure track athletes on the merits, so let's withhold funding from those who want to leave!" The NCAA has $$ to lure atheltes there-- not sure anyone would go there without the funding provided by US schools. Why should Canada not exert the same influnce in the reverse direction? I actually think the NCAA carding is a bad idea. If they are racing a busy 3 season NCAA sched. do they really need to spend the summer going over to Europe chasing an elusive PB? There should be plenty of time to do that post-collegiately. And Trent, to answer your question-- from a purely athletic standpoint, yes I would have moved to Victoria if there were an NTC/ funding opportunity. In the end, due to my professional and family obligations I probably would have chosen to forego the funding and stay in Toronto-Ottawa. MM |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 6, 2010 10:45:49 GMT -5
I pay taxes in a number of countries depending on where I earn money, put, I am assuming the answer you are looking for is that I pay the majority of my taxes to the U.S. government. But, when you look at the fact that the majority of our Canadian athletes only source of income is carding, and that those carding dollars are not taxed, the question I have is how many of our Canadian athletes living in Canada are paying taxes to the Canadian government? Very few since sponsorship and prize money are pretty hard to come by in Canada. So most Canadian athletes who receive carding $ are not "paying back" into the system via tax revenues. Here is the fact though. Since 1994, I've run 3:36 or faster in every year except for the two years that I was injured (1996 & 1998). In that same time period, there have been only four (Hood, Agar, Brannen, Milne) other Canadians who have run 3:36 or faster, three of whom were also based in the U.S. If carding is an investment in athletes who have the the higher likelihood of progressing to the top-8 in the world, then it makes no sense to deny those athletes funding to fund whatever number of 3:39-3:42 1500m runners based in Canada. And to take it further, were anyone of us U.S. based athletes to change citizenship to represent the U.S. (and I have been in a position to be able to do that for a # of years now) it would have been very much more lucrative that the $18,000 a year we would have been giving up in carding money. Loyalty to ones country is not simply decided by residency. I mean, how many B.C. celebrity residents were used in the B.C. tourism commercials playing constantly during the Olympics...very few. Most were residents of (an a few citizens of) the United States. And 2 of the 4 cauldron lighters were U.S. based athletes (Gretz and Nash). We don't seem to have a problem showing off our Canadian born & raised talent regardless of residency, but God forbid we support them with a few dollars to help them get to the next level if they choose to find system outside of Canada to nurture their talents. I realize I am stretching the argument a bit because the stay in Canada clause is just for development cards but the basic premise is the same. Performance and strong training plans should be the primary deciders in who gets funding and who doesn't, regardless of where that athlete chooses to train. The attempt to fit all development carded athletes into a NTC program is shortsighted. A few things, and feel free not to answer if you wish: Krs1-Where do you pay your taxes, and what is your stated residency? Again it is clear you have represented Canada well over the years, but as for continuing carding money for athletes who keep citizenship versus residency (or paying back of taxes),why would it be in the Canadian government's interests to keep that money allocated towards Canadians living and paying taxes elsewhere? The government limits "Canadian foreigners" in this regard in almost every field of endeavour from R & D initiatives, to military procurement, to providing musicians in Canada 35% of the playing time on the radio (only if they are direct residents--too bad Bryan Adams). Is this protectionist? Of course it is. But it is "their" money, and the stated policies of the government in this regard have been clear--to build and create programs and jobs in Canada, for Canadians. This is not to say, we should stop top runners (or anybody) from living elsewhere, just that it is a reasonable action to take from a taxpayer's perspective. Last point- let's take this argument down to the provincial level, to the Quest for Gold funding in Ontario or Athletics Manitoba grants to athletes. Why would it be in the Manitoba's government's interest to fund an athlete who lives in Calgary? It might be better for the athlete, but if the goal of Athletics Manitoba is to support athletics in their home province, why would they fund a former Manitoba resident who now lives elsewhere? They don't. If you want the money, you play (live) by their rules. |
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Apr 6, 2010 10:49:42 GMT -5
Matt,
1. If this isn't applying force, I don't know what is.
2. So, a dude goes to an NCAA school, works well with the coach, gets into a real groove, costs Canada nothing in terms of infrastructure support... and has to move to a place he's never been and to be coached by a new person in order to be funded. You don't see how an athlete may not want to do this, and how this could likely be destructive?
3. Ok, I'm sorry. "OMG, I've lived and trained in Canada all my life, like, this is the only way to win!" It wasn't directed at you, but I fixed it anyways.
4. No, the merits include more than NCAA money. The merits include weather, facilities, coaching, weather, altitude, ect. We're not talking about just the States... Btw, I can't think of any NCAA Canadian that's been hitting the European circuit to chase times, but maybe you know some.
Anyways, should this "Only in Canada" policy be put on the Senior cards as well? Should they be monitored via the drug-testing tracking system, and carding be withheld for the portion of time they train outside of Canada? I agree with oldlegs, as a taxpayer I would like my tax dollars to stay within my economy. I completely understand why the average Canadian would want this constraint. But at the same time, I don't think this is a healthy policy for many athletes.
|
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Apr 6, 2010 11:35:29 GMT -5
I'll leave the whole training stateside thing alone and instead zero in on Matt's point about forcing athletes to train at national training centres to receive funding.
This has to be joke. Tell me it's a joke. Let me get this straight- in order to receive any sort of funding to support your training, you have to throw away whatever professional/personal/scholastic obligations you have in another part of the country and move to go train at one of these centres?
I think it's all fine and good if athletes choose to go train in Guelph or elsewhere, but if some Canadians do not want to train in the same place as the rest, and instead want to continue their development in say, oh I dunno, St. John's or somewhere else, then I do not believe their funding should be cut. The money should go to those who have earned it (and by earning it I mean by performance, not by those who show up to workout at some arbitrary spot on the map).
I also somehow think that athlete role models are a little more effective when they are spread out across the country as opposed to concentrated in one or two places.
I am not arguing against the value of having training groups. But I am saying that for those athletes that choose to fly solo and are better for it, I would much rather see my tax dollars go to them. Reward great performers, not great sheep.
|
|
tb400
Junior Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by tb400 on Apr 6, 2010 12:28:51 GMT -5
Further to PMac, reward the coaches who produce athletes at a development card level with whatever additional resources (e.g. medical, sport science training camps) they need. The more coaches who benefit like this the better for the athlete and the sport.
Unless the situation is a good fit, forcing coaches to give up their athlete to an NTC would not foster a healthy relationship between the NTCs and the clubs that have invested time and money to develop their athletes.
Otherwise, if we lose our NTC coaches to another country, all that expertise vanishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 6, 2010 12:37:11 GMT -5
I'll leave the whole training stateside thing alone and instead zero in on Matt's point about forcing athletes to train at national training centres to receive funding. This has to be joke. Tell me it's a joke. Let me get this straight- in order to receive any sort of funding to support your training, you have to throw away whatever professional/personal/scholastic obligations you have in another part of the country and move to go train at one of these centres? I think it's all fine and good if athletes choose to go train in Guelph or elsewhere, but if some Canadians do not want to train in the same place as the rest, and instead want to continue their development in say, oh I dunno, St. John's or somewhere else, then I do not believe their funding should be cut. The money should go to those who have earned it (and by earning it I mean by performance, not by those who show up to workout at some arbitrary spot on the map). I also somehow think that athlete role models are a little more effective when they are spread out across the country as opposed to concentrated in one or two places. I am not arguing against the value of having training groups. But I am saying that for those athletes that choose to fly solo and are better for it, I would much rather see my tax dollars go to them. Reward great performers, not great sheep. The only sense in which I think Mattmc is right on this is in consistently following the logic of restricting athletes residency options to its logical conclusion-- which is requiring that they report to a particular place in Canada. And notcanadian is correct in pointing out that a further logical extension would be to require that ALL carded athletes remain in Canada, and report for duty at a designated place. The idea of restricting residency for Canadian track and field athletes, however, is wrong, even if Sport Canada (or AC-- whoever is behind the new rule) has the power to do it. It is wrong because of the broader implications for both individual athletes and the sport. For athletes in individual sports, the choice of coaching and of training environments is by far the most fundamental and crucial. If you attempt to interfere with this, you undermine the athlete's preparation in the most basic of ways-- in ways that go to the core of the athlete's psyche. An athlete who has not freely chosen his/her coach and training environment, and who is unhappy or dissatisfied with his/her situation in this regard for any reason might as well quit. Even happy and contented athletes must struggle to realize their potential; unhappy and discontented athletes have no chance whatsoever. There may be something to gain by dictating to funded athletes where and with whom they may train (and no one is disputing that funding agencies have this power; but it IS a question of power when there's money on one side and need on the other). But, whatever is gained by making such a rule needs to be weighed against what is inevitably going to be lost. And we cannot lose sight of the fact that carding is expressly NOT intended to act as full financial support for an athlete; built into it is the assumption that carded athletes, who are all adults, must meet the remainder of their financial needs themselves, including taking steps to prepare for their lives post-retirement. This assumption presumably includes a recognition that athletes will pursue education, job training, or part-time employment opportunities even as they receive funding support. The residency restriction imposes very real limitations on an athlete's basic ability to do these things (think of the effect, e.g., on a former NCAA athlete who had designs on becoming a coach at his/her alma mater, or in the system in general.) In general, I'm very skeptical of the notion that you can build a development system starting with rules that restrict the freedoms of the very people you're ostensibly trying to serve, support, and nurture. There is no elite Canadian sport apart from the tiny number of individual athletes who make it up. (To talk about the needs of "Canadian track" apart from the needs of the individuals who sit at the top of it is to engage in misguided abstraction.) But, in general, you do not build a development system starting with restrictive rules; you build a system by making it good enough that the best athletes freely CHOOSE to support it (with reference to my first point, there is really no other way). It's not in dispute that the people who control the funding purse have both the power to make these sorts of rules and the semblance of a principle upon which to base them. A Canadian residency rule is, however, ill-conceived and bound to be counterproductive in the long run. It is completely out of tune with the basic reality of our sport today. |
|
|
|
Post by eagle1 on Apr 6, 2010 12:48:55 GMT -5
I actually think they should go one step further and require ALL carded athletes to train at an NTC. Carding should be aimed at developing centers of coaching and athletic excellence in Canada. I cannot think of another government investment that allows those who receive it to live out of the country (maybe arts grants? but certainly not anything in the science and tech R & D fields). Do other countries have similar criteria? I know many of the other sport governing bodies in Canada do. While KRS1 has a valid point that one can inspire from abroad-- the benefit is marginal when compared to the trickle down effect top athletes have who live and train at home. One needs to look no further than the Speed River Group. They now have a cadre of 4-6 carded level athletes and innumerable up and comers. This heirarchical model with junior and university athletes feeding the top tier is one that should be emulated. The active examples of Coolsaet, Gillis et al are surely invaluable for the athletes who train with the group. You can't take for granted how valuable it is to have a role model around day in-day out to show you how to get to the top. I am sure the FSU athletes Kevin is involved with get the benefit of this (I hope Matt Leeder is one of them). I am not sure we should be funding Kevin's training abroad with taxpayer dollars. This is certainly not an attack on Kevin, or his choice to train in the US. If an athlete feels this is the optimal situation, I favor that they should do so without the benefit of carding money. Allowing carded athletes to train wherever they choose may be a strategy of short term gain (better short term performance), I believe it is at the expense of long term development (stunting of the growth of the domestic NTCs). MM Conceptually, this is a good argument. However, there is one technical problem regarding your example of the Speed River/Guelph group. They are not an NTC. Victoria is. |
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Apr 6, 2010 13:03:22 GMT -5
short reply to Oldster...
when I was a post-doc (nearly 4 yrs ago now), I was a Canadian resident but just working in Netherlands-- so I still paid Canadian Taxes at this point. And I agree, that it would not make sense for the Canadian science funding agency to non-Canadian residents.
I have not gotten (or applied for) any Canadian National granting awards in nearly 4 years. Me, personally, for tax reasons I am no longer a Canadian resident, I am now officially a resident of Canada.
interesting debates all around....and a real divergence of opinion between some generally well established and respected 'old boys' of the sport. (don't mean to offend by the term old boys...Sully I still know you got a couple of good years in those legs!!!).
Canadian residency aside...the real question might be asked, is how many days per year do our top athletes (regardless of residency or "ties" to NTCs) actually train (not just be visiting at Christmas, or the off season) at said Canadian NTCs?
I know a lot of athletes (carded and affiliated with NTCs) who probably spend very little time there actually training (instead, training in warm weather locals, or in other parts of the world etc.).
|
|
