|
|
Post by Linc on Apr 6, 2010 13:10:06 GMT -5
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. Just to clarify, this is NOT a new rule. The developmental carding criteria have been this way for at least the past 5 years(probably more)... |
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Apr 6, 2010 13:10:09 GMT -5
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.). Ding ding ding, we have a winner. If you're going to penalize people for not being in Canada, penalize everyone. It's real fun to lynch all the non-residents... until you have to withhold carding from Reid for 3 months because he's in Auburn/Flagstaff. Or withhold carding from Gary Reed for 4 months because he's in Pheonix/Europe. I mean, if they aren't in Canada spreading rainbows and ponies to all the children, they shouldn't be getting their carding money, amirite? |
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Apr 6, 2010 13:15:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 6, 2010 13:23:29 GMT -5
Thanks for that gtown, very interesting.
It's good to see in print what seems so painfully obvious in practice:
"5. Event Groups targeting: Athletics Canada will focus on specific events or event groups: the sprints, selected technical events, the 800 & 1500m."
LD running isn't on AC's radar.
|
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Apr 6, 2010 13:26:34 GMT -5
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. Just to clarify, this is NOT a new rule. The developmental carding criteria have been this way for at least the past 5 years(probably more)... And looking at who got the Dev. cards last year, I now realize that this criteria is just another one of those rules that AC doesn't enforce. All that discussion for nothing, haha... |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 6, 2010 18:55:47 GMT -5
Thanks for that gtown, very interesting. It's good to see in print what seems so painfully obvious in practice: "5. Event Groups targeting: Athletics Canada will focus on specific events or event groups: the sprints, selected technical events, the 800 & 1500m." LD running isn't on AC's radar. This is not new, but very explicitly stated. Athletics Canada has lost the right to be the sport governing body for events that are longer than 1500 metres, including all cross-country and road-racing, and all track events that take longer than 4 minutes and a bit to complete... How the hell do they have any legal or moral authority to host Championships in these events, or collect any revenues from athletes who compete in these events??? Or sponsors who support the mass-participation events which are all longer than 1500 metres, of course ? This is ridiculous beyond the absurd. How can any distance runner or coach, with any moral fibre, take this organization at all seriously? If I was younger, it would be Revolution Time... And it would include some young legal folks questioning a mandate which has been granted to AC, but which is not extended to distance running events, and stated clearly in writing --- our targeted support does not include you, sorry, but thanks for coming out (and paying your fees)... |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 6, 2010 19:29:44 GMT -5
To make it even more clear, the ONLY events that are specifically not part of the Athletics Canada mandate, are events longer than 1500 metres. Under "High Performance Directions", point # 5 is "Event Groups Targeting", and states strongly that AC will focus on specific events or event groups, outlined as: 1) Sprints (thus any event from 100 to 400, men or women, including relays, and presumably hurdles) 2) Selected technical events --- I believe all field events can be called a "selected technical event". 3) 800 and 1500 metres. Really, are we that great in those events at the moment? Or is there just a Coach needed to be served, again? 4) Someone, please point out to me how only the longer distance events are excluded from the A.C. focus, and why this is okay --- do we have any reps. on here that were part of this discussion and decision making process? |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 6, 2010 19:56:25 GMT -5
THIS is the ronb be we all know and love!
|
|
|
|
Post by benjamin on Apr 6, 2010 21:05:50 GMT -5
Just going to play devil's advocate here.
It follows with the rest of the stuff in that mandate that distance shouldn't get the funding.
The mandate is:
1. Top down approach - those who are at the top or have a good chance of giving a top 8 or top 12 get the funding.
2. Medals medals medals - Priscilla got the only one in Beijing. Priscilla got the only one in Berlin. Priscilla gets as much money as she wants.
3. Perdita Felicien, Dylan Armstrong, and Gary Reed were all strong podium possibilities, and remain so. They get as much money as they want because we want 3 medals in London.
4. The goal was 2 medals in Berlin. That was not achieved. The goal is 2 medals and 6-8 top 8s in Daegu, and 3 medals and 8-10 top 8 ranked people on the start list for London.
So where do we have the best chance of succeeding in that goal (8-10 top ranked athletes and 3 medals in 2012)? Let's take a look:
Sprints: Perdita, Priscilla (Bronze), Tyler Christopher (if still competing); Carline Muir (20th at Beijing); Jared Connaughton (made the semis in the 200m)
Relays: Men's 4 x 100m got 10th at Beijing
Throws: Dylan Armstrong (4th at Beijing); James Steacy (10th at Beijing); Scott Russell (10th at Beijing)
Multi: Jessica Zelinka (5th at Beijing); Massimo Bertocchi (19th at Beijing)
Jumps: Tabia Charles (8th at Beijing); Kelsey Hendry (18th at Beijing); Mike Mason (19th at Beijing)
800m: Gary Reed (4th at Beijing)
1500m: Sully and Brannen both got 9th in their semis; Taylor Milne also up and coming, didn't make the semis
5000m: Megan Metcalfe (15th at Beijing); Sully moved up to run it and got 11th in his heat
10000m: Eric Gillis (33rd at Beijing)
50km race walk: Tim Berrett (38th at Beijing)
Marathon: Didn't send anyone
Possibilities:
Perdita Felicien
Priscilla Lopes-Schliep
Dylan Armstrong
Gary Reed
Men's 4 x 100m relay
James Steacy
Scott Russell
Jessica Zelinka
Tabia Charles
Nathan Brannen/Taylor Milne/any of the up and coming guys sitting at 3:40-2 right now who could get down there by then
That's 10! No more funding available. Sorry.
I'd imagine we can add our marathon guys to this list since we're starting to get some solid depth there, but I'm sure you all see my point. It's a top down approach, and in order to stay true to that the people most likely to achieve the goals as they are set out are the ones who are going to get the attention. Those are the event groups specified in the above posts.
All we need is have a couple people start running under 13:10 or 27:30 regularly, and I think we'll suddenly find there's interest. Good luck! National records for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Apr 6, 2010 21:17:07 GMT -5
I completely understand the points people are making regarding freedom of choice and the unappetizing option of forcing people into situations they are not comfortable with.
The reason I brought up the issue was to provoke discussion, and explore the costs and benefits of funding athletes who live abroad.
While a system that allows athletes to live and train anywhere is optimal for the individual athlete, it is not optimal for developing thriving NTCs and a competitive domestic scene.
A system that restricts athletes to NTCs regardless of suitability to the athlete is optimal for building our NTCs and domestic competition scene, while sacrificing the individual freedoms of the athlete.
While you can argue that many athletes would not thrive in the NTC system because they are being forced into a system they are not comfortable with, you can also argue that many more athletes will benefit from the structure, experience and expertise an NTC has to offer.
At the end of the day, the distilled version of my vision is that our funding should be center-focused rather than individual-focused. I think the concept of carding individuals is short-sighted and benefits short term performance at the expense of LTD. If we could somehow move money from the carding pool into the NTC pool (not possible, I know) we could build thriving NTCs with coaching expertise and flexibility that would suit the needs of a variety of athletes. Surely if done well, MOST athletes would thrive in such a situation.
The overall benefit of having the top to bottom Speed River type of center is that young athletes are mentored by the older athletes. This mentoring is a massive intangible benefit that has no price tag. Ideally, athletes could earn $$ helping with coaching juniors, masters athletes and center administration.
I specifically choose Speed River since I think it is a better top to bottom model than Victoria, which seems focused on the needs of only a few athletes (my uninformed birds-eye view-- please correct me if I am wrong).
At the end of the day it is not about who lives where, or who pays taxes where, but how our money can be best spent to develop our sport in Canada.
In my opinion, we can do better by developing centers that will become nuclei for top athletes. If part of the 'cost' of such centers is to incentivize athletes to train at them via carding $$ so be it.
A more moderate proposal would be to have 2 tiers of carding-- NTC based and non NTC based.
MM
PS Interesting-- in that presentation by AC linked above they are shifting road to excellence funding away from individuals and towards NTCs. A step in the right direction!
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 6, 2010 21:44:40 GMT -5
I think I agree with Matt about this. What's so bad about requiring mobility? If you work for the federal government in many jobs, you have to be prepared to move around, or at the very least, move to Ottawa. It seems like a fair trade: we give you money, you come here and work (i.e. train). It's not that bad to have to move across the country for a job if your job is that you do track and field for a living. It is a good way to separate those who are serious about their development, and those who are not. Basically, if you are good enough to justify moving for training, you can get the money.
|
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Apr 6, 2010 22:02:59 GMT -5
I think I agree with Matt about this. What's so bad about requiring mobility? If you work for the federal government in many jobs, you have to be prepared to move around, or at the very least, move to Ottawa. It seems like a fair trade: we give you money, you come here and work (i.e. train). It's not that bad to have to move across the country for a job if your job is that you do track and field for a living. It is a good way to separate those who are serious about their development, and those who are not. Basically, if you are good enough to justify moving for training, you can get the money. Journeyman, to be fair, are you at all aware of how much money carded athletes get? You do realize it cannot possibly even replace a meagre paying full-time job, right? How about the married athlete? Is he or she not serious if they do not want to uproot two people (or more if kids are involved) and move them across the country to a national training centre? Don't think for a second that this would be involving one person alone. And who is Athletics Canada (if they did propose something like this) to say that one's education, career, personal life, etc. has to be put on hold in order to foster development in some designated training mecca? "Hey Dylan Wykes, please cease work on your masters thesis, move to Victoria, or any funding that you will ever receive is cut. You can continue it when you're fat and slow and do not have any career options because you've spent 15 years training and only training as opposed to finishing your masters." A lot of athletes can't just drop everything to train anywhere. And they shouldn't be expected to- you can train hard and be a dedicated student or employee. And at the end of the day, if they're winning, I could care less where they train. |
|
|
|
Post by feens on Apr 6, 2010 22:17:46 GMT -5
Matt: you keep saying athletes should train at NTCs and mentioning Speed River as the place to be, but ignore he fact that they aren't currently a NTC.
|
|
|
|
Post by deekay on Apr 6, 2010 23:59:33 GMT -5
Obvious differences between sports aside, it would be interesting to find out how many of the Nordic skiers on the 2010 Olympic squad train outside of the Canmore NTC? They certainly had a breakthrough year.
The argument of uprooting family/career/life aside, what if an NTC were so well equipped, staffed, funded, and exposed that upcoming young talent view the opportunity to train at one as a milestone of achievement in itself, rather than an internment camp sentence? Maybe this is the reputation Victoria and Guelph(I know, I know) are developing?
(As an aside)
Given this argument is happening right at tax time, and I've just received my notice of assessment telling me my tax contributions this year somehow fell short by approximately 10% of the value of one meagre carding (ouch! I'm still paying my student loan!), the taxpayer argument is especially affecting. However, my appreciation of the sport of track and field is such that I'm actually quite glad I am theoretically supporting some of the greatest runners in Canadian history, regardless of where they call home.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Apr 7, 2010 6:39:09 GMT -5
I am well aware that SR is not a designated NTC. I am simply using it as an example of what an NTC could and should be. As it stands, I am not sure any of the existing NTCs fit the bill as well as the non-NTC SR does.
MM
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 7, 2010 7:08:26 GMT -5
Obvious differences between sports aside, it would be interesting to find out how many of the Nordic skiers on the 2010 Olympic squad train outside of the Canmore NTC? They certainly had a breakthrough year. The argument of uprooting family/career/life aside, what if an NTC were so well equipped, staffed, funded, and exposed that upcoming young talent view the opportunity to train at one as a milestone of achievement in itself, rather than an internment camp sentence? Maybe this is the reputation Victoria and Guelph(I know, I know) are developing? Yes, I know how much carding is. This is a good example. My point is not about the amount of money, but about the dedication and focus on the sport (cue indignant posts about how athletes are dedicated blah blah blah). What makes something a job, or at least what makes something your primary focus in life is not how much money you make, but how important it is to you and how good you can be at it. Put another way, who do we want to fund? I assume that we want to fund athletes who are going to be successful internationally. The goal of top 8 is certainly reasonable. Of course, the question is how to get there, and it is reasonable, but a bit of a different debate I think, to want to fund those at a lower level than that, because how else are they going to get there? Fair enough. But one way of encouraging athletes to reach the top is to put them in an environment where they can train full-time. So yes, it would be good for an athlete to finish school first. If my girlfriend got a job in her field in a different city, I would move there. That's a sacrifice you decide to make or not. The Brooks Marathon Project expects you to move to Toronto, I believe. What's wrong with that? These are all programs for privileged people, not welfare or something. Athletes don't have a right to government funding. There is no "moral authority" required to administer these funds. It is difficult to prove something in the negative, but is it possible that the reason we have various individual successes in athletics, and not a full-on successful "program" because of a lack of this kind of focus? Krs1 is the exception, not the model, I would argue. It can break down like this: 1. There are significant benefits to training in a NTC environment. 2. SC/AC want to maximize the benefits to athletes they fund. 3. They can require certain things of those athletes they fund, like making a standard, training at an NTC, running in certain meets. All of that is perfectly reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 7, 2010 7:13:30 GMT -5
A lot of athletes can't just drop everything to train anywhere. And they shouldn't be expected to- you can train hard and be a dedicated student or employee. And at the end of the day, if they're winning, I could care less where they train. It seems to me that if athletes are as adaptable as you say, it wouldn't be such a big problem to move. If we were seeing results from the individual system, your argument would be stronger. But we are not. The point is not that individual athletes can't succeed on their own, but that more athletes will succeed if we create a training environment for them. The reason why you can't have both is because if you take out top individuals, then the NTC training environment benefits are lessened for everyone else. The purpose of the NTC is to get greater results than individuals could achieve on their own. AC pays the (meagre, sure) bill, so they call the shots. No athlete has a right to this money. It is 100% conditional. What's wrong with setting those conditions to maximize the group benefit? |
|
mpd
Junior Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by mpd on Apr 7, 2010 8:12:22 GMT -5
Personally, I'm in favour of these high standards. I think it is somewhat pathetic when I hear that all a 24-30 year-old is doing is living off of carding money. Despite a slow economy it is not that hard to find a job that pays $20000 a year and allows an individual to train 3-4 hours a day, while being able to recover.
Working provides balance and perspective and if an athlete is good enough to get money from the government, then that should be their full-time job. Meaning, if the government believes in the athlete then that athlete should be good enough to get a contract.
As my roommate said, "Did you see the standards?! If I run 15:15 (or whatever the women's 5k standard is) then I'll be able to get a contract!" Exactly. If you aren't good enough to get a professional contract then what makes you think you deserve support from the government? Americans were always blown away by our "old" carding system.
Be creative, think of ways to raise money or get private sponsors. Or, in all craziness, get a job!
|
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Apr 7, 2010 9:39:20 GMT -5
Personally, I'm in favour of these high standards. I think it is somewhat pathetic when I hear that all a 24-30 year-old is doing is living off of carding money. Despite a slow economy it is not that hard to find a job that pays $20000 a year and allows an individual to train 3-4 hours a day, while being able to recover. Working provides balance and perspective and if an athlete is good enough to get money from the government, then that should be their full-time job. In your first paragraph you call an athlete living off of carding "somewhat pathetic" and they should get a job. In your next paragraph you say that if an athlete is good enough to get money from the government(ie.carding?) then "that" should be their full-time job. Am I missing something, or is that a bit of a contradiction?  How many jobs would hire someone when they are gone 4 months out of the year? and when they are around, still travel every other week? |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 7, 2010 10:53:54 GMT -5
I like Mattmc's post about the limits of carding individual athletes versus the benefits of systemic funding, including well equipped and staffed training centres that are more than just "high performance" centers. If it were simply a question of bang for the buck, this would be a far better approach than the short-termism inherent in trying to push a handful of athletes "over the top" through individual funding and training centres set up around them and their coach (although, is it inconceivable that there could be both centres of development AND individual funding for the top people? Don't some countries manage both?).
And journeyman, I was at pains to acknowledge in my post that whoever pays the bills has the power to call the tune precisely so that we wouldn't have to read umpteen iterations of the statement "No athlete has a right to this money", as if it were somehow an argument. It's a given that athletes are in no position to make rights-based demands of the funder. The argument here concerns whether the funder OUGHT to use it's power to dictate where national team athletes should live and train-- ought, that is, from the point of view of promoting excellence in the sport. If you have a good or new argument for why athletes should be required to stay in Canada, or relocate to an NTC, then let's hear it. That "athletes have no right" is not an argument.
The second part of my post concerned how the funder explicitly states that carding is not meant as the sole financial support for the athlete, with the clear implication that athletes must take responsibility for their financial well-being, present and future. A requirement to relocate would interfere directly with an athlete's ability to do this, and thus constitute a clear logical and ethical contradiction. Either the funder is going to look after ALL of the athletes current financial needs, as well as provide scope and funding for post-retirement job preparation (which, in Canada, it is likely never going to do), or it must (i.e. in order to remain both logically consistent and ethically sound) allow athletes the freedom to choose to live and train in a location that allows them to balance their athletic and financial needs, present and future.
|
|
mpd
Junior Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by mpd on Apr 7, 2010 12:04:28 GMT -5
Personally, I'm in favour of these high standards. I think it is somewhat pathetic when I hear that all a 24-30 year-old is doing is living off of carding money. Despite a slow economy it is not that hard to find a job that pays $20000 a year and allows an individual to train 3-4 hours a day, while being able to recover. Working provides balance and perspective and if an athlete is good enough to get money from the government, then that should be their full-time job. In your first paragraph you call an athlete living off of carding "somewhat pathetic" and they should get a job. In your next paragraph you say that if an athlete is good enough to get money from the government(ie.carding?) then "that" should be their full-time job. Am I missing something, or is that a bit of a contradiction? How many jobs would hire someone when they are gone 4 months out of the year? and when they are around, still travel every other week? "Somewhat pathetic" may have been a bit strong. The key to my point of view is found in my third paragraph. Though it wasn't well conveyed, I was just making an observation. I know a lot of carded athletes that are (or have been) dependent on their carding money. Athletics Canada would give an individual some money and that individual would believe that they were called to be a full-time athlete. The athlete spends a few years at the development level, possibly a few years at the senior level and, while doing so, develops very few other areas in his/her life. My point being, athletics canada, if they are going to be selective with their resources, may as well give it to those athletes that realistically can make a decent living in the sport (ie. get a contract). I would go so far as to say that all development cards ought to awarded to athletes if, and only if, they are in school or working part-time... I really believe that university/college provides an excellent opportunity for carded and un-carded athletes to continue to train while gaining experience for when it's time to hang up the spikes. For athletes that don't have a subject they want to pursue then a job,which they enjoy seems like a sensible solution. I agree, Linc, a traditional 9-5 job is unrealistic for a 3:40 guy trying to get to 3:36 but that doesn't mean there aren't other places to make money. With the Internet alone, you could have a good job without leaving your home. Hope that clarifies it a bit... |
|
|
|
Post by Smithwicks on Apr 7, 2010 12:58:57 GMT -5
Do tell. I'm always looking for other career opportunities.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 7, 2010 20:59:04 GMT -5
In my opinion, the carding document, and the high performance principles, and our whole approach to Sport in Canada is fatally flawed. The statement about "investment with the highest potential return" says it all. It's exactly the same as the OTP thinking. The bottom line is that the highest potential return will come in events where there is the lowest possible level of competition. Is there any doubt about that? When our total success is measured in terms of medals or top 8's, we just need to research the areas where the fewest countries are competing. We should be investing all our money in Para-Athletics. Oh, and then the throwing events, oh and then the Relays. Hey, that's what we are doing --- good plan !!!
Forget the fact that the numbers of Canadians who take part in an event longer than 1500 metres, whether on track, road, trail, cross-country, or whatever, probably exceeds all other events by a factor of 100 or so..... Forget about that --- let's just fund those few sports where Canadians have a distinct advantage --- think snow, ice, swimming pools, bikes, rowing shells, wheelchairs, etc. Wow - what utter bullshit our National Sport Plan is...
|
|
carls
New Member
Posts: 16 
|
Post by carls on Apr 7, 2010 21:46:06 GMT -5
I think it is somewhat pathetic when I hear that all a 24-30 year-old is doing is living off of carding money. how's the weather up there? |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Apr 7, 2010 22:31:55 GMT -5
Really interesting debate guys, keep it up. Perhaps it would be a good idea to visit how other successful nations run their programs? What do the Americans do? What do the Aussies do? The Kenyans?
|
|
Rory
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by Rory on Apr 7, 2010 23:35:31 GMT -5
Sorry if this has already been answered but i havent followed the whole debate.
AC handed out 66 cards, do the new standards mean that if athletes dont achieve them less cards will be handed out in the future? and if so does that mean sport canada could potentially start giving athletics fewer cards?
|
|
mpd
Junior Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by mpd on Apr 8, 2010 7:01:54 GMT -5
I think it is somewhat pathetic when I hear that all a 24-30 year-old is doing is living off of carding money. how's the weather up there? It's down there, and it's beautiful. 27 degrees and sun every day. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 8, 2010 12:49:04 GMT -5
Sorry if this has already been answered but i havent followed the whole debate. AC handed out 66 cards, do the new standards mean that if athletes dont achieve them less cards will be handed out in the future? and if so does that mean sport canada could potentially start giving athletics fewer cards? I would assume that, since athletes must meet the minimum standard (D) to even apply for carding, and that these have been significantly tightened, they are prepared to give out fewer cards. |
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Apr 8, 2010 14:17:01 GMT -5
Has anyone looked at numbers in the criteria? I may be off on my math, but...
To make the "C" and be carded, the mark for women 800m gets faster by 1.36 seconds (2:01.57 to 2:00.21) from Age 27 to Age 28+. To make the "C" and be carded, the minimum for women 5000m gets faster by 1.36 seconds (15:09.36 to 15:08.00) from Age 27 to Age 28+.
In the men 5000m at Age 23, the "D" standard is FASTER than the "C" standard.
If you are a 24 year old man who ran 8:22 twice in the 3000SC in 2008, you got your two A standards and you're going to Beijing!! If you are a 24 year old man who ran 8:22 seven times in the 3000SC in 2010, you do not have the C standard and are not senior carded.
If you are a 26 year old man who ran 13:19 in the 5000m in 2008, you got the A+ standard in 2008 and you're packing your bags to Beijing!! If you are a 26 year old man who ran 13:19 in the 5000m in 2010, you do not have the C standard and are not senior carded. (Conversely, if a 26 year old female runs the A+ Beijing standard in 2010, she would be under the C standard by more than 12 seconds!!)
If you are a 27 year old man who ran 49.51 in the 400mH in 2008, you didn't get either the A+, A or B Standards, you're not going to Beijing... But, if you are a 27 year old man who ran 49.51 in the 400mH in 2010, you are getting senior carded! (Unlike those dumb 5000m and steeple guys...)
Anyone have a guess at how the powers-that-be developed these marks?
[Edit: Haha... I did not read Mr. Winter's blog before posting this...]
|
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Apr 8, 2010 14:19:07 GMT -5
|
|
