bcg
Junior Member
Posts: 65 
|
Post by bcg on Apr 8, 2010 15:38:54 GMT -5
Athletics Canada sure makes it tough for the top runners to maintain their enthusiasm to stay in the sport post-collegiately. Full credit to guys like Chris Winter who try to hang in there and purue their dream. The attitude that seems to come across from AC is that unless you`re able to deliver a world championship or Olympic medal for Canada right away (or pretty darn soon) then don`t even bother trying. It seems that to them even someone like Kevin Sullivan, who has been an absolutely amazing athlete, is probably a failure because he has ONLY come 5th at the Olympics, and that just won`t due for Canada! Because Kevin is not an Olympic medalist he is presumably unknown to most Canadians (other than runners or Brantford residents) and yet he is one of the most amazing athletes on the planet and someone that Canadians should be very proud of. Unfortunately I think that the recent Winter Olympics success comes at a big price for Canada- the large number of Canadian medals may have the general public and the politicians insisting on lots of Olympics medals in the future and to do that the decision is apt be made to focus on only those events that are most likely to produce medals (as ronb said)- it`s sure a hell of a lot easier to get medals in the winter sports or some of the fringe summer sports than it is in most of the running events where the overall world participation rate is incredibly higher. It was stated during the Winter Olympics that 94% of the world`s curlers reside in Canada- not getting medals in that sport would be a pretty dismal failure! Can you imagine if 94% of the world`s runners lived in Canada? Bet our medal haul in track would be pretty damn good! In fairness to AC though I suspect that a lot of what they are doing is being forced upon them by the COC/ politicians/ general public.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 8, 2010 20:58:57 GMT -5
It's a given that athletes are in no position to make rights-based demands of the funder. Ok, I'll bite, even though I don't see how just because you acknowledge that my point is correct, that means I can't make it... The funder ought to use its power to dictate where national team athletes should live and train because the funder has the broad vision to see all the various assets under its mandate and is in a better position than individual athletes to determine how to place all the assets in such a way as to maximize its return, i.e. get all the athletes running faster. I don't think it is a bad idea at all to put them all in one place. But I also argue that university cross country teams are actually teams, and not just a collection of individuals, so I could be wrong there. Put another way, the argument that forcing an athlete to move around or change coaches is necessarily detrimental doesn't hold water for me. Especially in distance running. It's a pretty portable sport. Coaching, as you have argued yourself quite strongly, is not as important as we make it out to be. As far as family and career, etc., I still think that if you want to make a run at an international career (which is what we're talking about when we're talking about carding), you have to be willing to sacrifice some aspects of your personal life. The key to this discussion is in moving from the theory to the reality. The reality is that some athletes are prima donnas, or loners, or fussy, or poor, none of which I mean as a value judgement (except maybe prima donnas), it's just their reality, and it is not that they CAN'T get along with a new coach or move, it's that they DON'T WANT TO. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. |
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Apr 8, 2010 21:52:30 GMT -5
You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Frankly in my opinion all you're really suggesting is dragging a healthy horse away from the oasis and into the desert. |
|
|
|
Post by maser on Apr 8, 2010 22:12:23 GMT -5
This has been a really interesting topic. BCG and Journeyman if you look at it from a realistic point of view ie who is funding the sports- The Canadian taxpayer. -they want results. So the Winter Olympics were a success we set a record for the most gold medals by a country. The country is proud and are willing to support our athletes Sports like xc skiing are not a fringe sport. There is a huge participation in it. We have had some great skiers ie Becky Scott, Chandra Crawford, Sarah Renner, Miriam Bedard,Devon Kershaw,Alex Harvey. Track is not the only sport in the world. I think you fail to realize the big picture. Any success at the Olympics be it winter or summer is great. It's what he public wants. They are paying for it any Olympic medal makes us proud to be Canadians.
The success of our previous sprint teams (Bailey et company or distance runners like Sully, Hood, McCloy, Elmore, McCubbins(RIP), Williams, Butler, Fell,McLaren, Drayton, L. Williams. Reed, etc. have been an inspiration to Canada. None of these people were "primadonnas". They worked hard and have represented
our country well. I think you have to realize the sacifrices that are made are worth it. There sure is a lot of BS /politics in the sport. The 1500 bucks that you get for the A standard is a joke
how do you expect to survive on that. A lot of the success with the Winter Olympics came because the support was there for
the athletes. Maybe Athletics Canada could learn a lesson. So get real and realize the big picture. Success be it in curling or luge or rowing or sprint is all the same if you want success support the programs and most important support the athletes.
The general public isn't stupid I think with the success of the Winter Olympics there is realization that we need to support are athletes. Now just need to educate the politicians and the beauracrats.
KM
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 8, 2010 22:19:00 GMT -5
Journeyman, your point about power, while factually correct, was entirely redundant (i.e. not in need of making in the first place.)
And whether national team level athletes can't or won't move around to suit the vision of AC or Sport Canada (and it is a huge stretch, BTW, to assume that either actually has a viable one) is completely immaterial. If you try to operate a program that goes directly against the perceived interests of the athletes you're trying to administer, you won't have any athletes to administer for very long-- and then where will you be? The temptation to use structural power is very strong for those who possess it (e.g. team coaches, sports bureaucrats); but, it doesn't work when you need people's full consent to get something done; if you don't have this, structural power just melts in your hands. (BTW, the point wasn't just that you thought a running "team" was a team; it was that you favoured using structural power to create a "team"-- if need be, against the wishes of the people who are supposed to make it up.)
And I shouldn't have to point out how insulting it is to compare serious athletes to stock animals who can't be induced to do someone's bidding. Suggesting that our top athletes are not already sacrificing a lot in terms of their personal life is ignorant and presumptuous in the extreme. Our top athletes are where they are-- and many just as talented by less accomplished athletes are where THEY are-- precisely because of a willingness to make personal sacrifices. If you want to moralize, talk to the many talented people who abandon the sport after high school or university (but, better yet, get off you high horse entirely).
Finally, I notice you chose not to address my point about the contradiction in the carding guidelines re: the athlete's responsibility to meet the balance of his/her present and future financial needs-- i.e. how requiring them to relocate would undermine their ability to do this as they see fit.
|
|
coy
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by coy on Apr 8, 2010 22:49:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 8, 2010 23:52:51 GMT -5
I am shocked that some seem to be saying, "a medal is a medal is a medal", or a top 8 or top 12 or top 16 is the same standard from one sport or activity to another. That is so obviously false, and a very crude measuring tool, to say the least. Perhaps, we just need to invent some new sports for each winter Olympic cycle, and OTP for ever. What a farce!
And a point not to be lost in this "relocation" discussion, is that AC does not have any high performance plans for runners who run longer than 1500 metres. So, relocate to where? According to the official AC document, there is nowhere in Canada to go for those who want to pursue High Performance Goals in the distance running events, and no targeted support for those "lonely long distance runners".
|
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Apr 9, 2010 6:51:46 GMT -5
AC does not have any high performance plans for runners who run longer than 1500 metres. So, relocate to where? According to the official AC document, there is nowhere in Canada to go for those who want to pursue High Performance Goals in the distance running events, and no targeted support for those "lonely long distance runners". I assume this has always be the case....is this correct?? Crazy! ...Just wondering if this is AC being reactive (ie lazy) to the legwork that groups like SpeedRiver or Brooks MP have already done, so feel it's not necessary? |
|
|
|
Post by powerboy on Apr 9, 2010 7:18:16 GMT -5
Good discussion.I agree to your point Ron that a medal is certainly not a medal is not a medal. Did I mention that I am ranked in the the top 100 in the world in skeleton racing? That is because there are not 100 guys even trying it!
I will never denigrate a great effort, but our gold medalist admitted to saying" I want to be an Olympian,now I will pick a sport!"
The bad news is that top 8 is almost out of reach in most of our events, other than the occasional brilliant effort. So what do we do? We carry on in the sport we love. The good news is that it doesnt take a lot of money to fund athletes, and given that we are a wealthy society, it really isnt that hard to find a way to fund some room and board and some travel for kids. It simply will never be a profession.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Apr 9, 2010 9:15:01 GMT -5
KM interesting that you use the XC skiers as an exmple of success at the Winter Oympics. Personally, I think the team peformance WAS a tremendous success. Do you think that the average Canadian would view their results (ergo lack of ANY medals) in the same light?
XC skiing is arguably the deepest and most competitive sport inthe Winter Olympics. Should we abandon funding of it?
MM
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 9, 2010 10:40:13 GMT -5
I am shocked that some seem to be saying, "a medal is a medal is a medal", or a top 8 or top 12 or top 16 is the same standard from one sport or activity to another. That is so obviously false, and a very crude measuring tool, to say the least. Perhaps, we just need to invent some new sports for each winter Olympic cycle, and OTP for ever. What a farce! And a point not to be lost in this "relocation" discussion, is that AC does not have any high performance plans for runners who run longer than 1500 metres. So, relocate to where? According to the official AC document, there is nowhere in Canada to go for those who want to pursue High Performance Goals in the distance running events, and no targeted support for those "lonely long distance runners". Ron, excellent point. This discussion about requiring individual athletes to relocate to a Canadian-based high performance centre is strictly hypothetical; but, even the lesser requirement that development carded athletes remain Canadian-based is a counterproductive imposition on Canadian distance runners, in the absence of properly funded infrastructure in which to train, should a runner so choose to avail him/herself of it. The requirement for developing distance runners to remain in Canada is a de facto requirement to choose between doing it entirely on your own (or perhaps in a Canadian university environment, where equal-calibre athletes are very scarce, to say the least) or move to Victoria or Guelph. Again, as holders of the purse strings, AC/Sport Canada has the power to set whatever rules it wants; but, to place a residency requirement on someone to whom you're offering $18,000 a year, guaranteed for only one year-- a sum that you explicitly state is not meant to represent anything like a salary-- is indefensible, and doubly so when you provide zero in the way of infrastructural supports for the athlete to carry on his/her training at home. That it is indefensible is probably why it has not been strictly enforced in the 5 years the rule has been in place. |
|
|
|
Post by maser on Apr 9, 2010 11:37:56 GMT -5
KM interesting that you use the XC skiers as an exmple of success at the Winter Oympics. Personally, I think the team peformance WAS a tremendous success. Do you think that the average Canadian would view their results (ergo lack of ANY medals) in the same light? XC skiing is arguably the deepest and most competitive sport inthe Winter Olympics. Should we abandon funding of it? MM MM- I think the Cross Country skiing program is a great success. There is a really good grassroots organization and it supports their athletes from the jackrabbits to elite. There is a project in the works here to utilize snow making equipment for a cross country ski area. They have been pretty successful with the fund raising and we have good coaches here and I think it will go ahead. The success of skiers like Beckie Scott, Chandra Crawford , Sarah Renner has raised the profile of the sport. I had a really great email from Devon Kershaw after the Olympics. He was only 1.6 seconds away from a medal 4th in one race, 5th in another. Pretty good results. I think they will keep the funding. There are some good corporate sponsors ie Statoil. Here in Alberta we have the Canmore Training centre but there is also a really good club system in place as well. We're fortunate to have Les Parson"s ( Beckie Scotts old coach) involved with the club here. We had Madelaine Williams from here at the Olympics. There are a lot of local ski areas and races. And some really good athletes. Some of these skiers are pretty fine runners as well. Devon Kershaw used rto run befrore he skied and he can still run a 15 min 5k or low 31`s for a 10k. I was in a race once in Salmon Arm it was a multi sport relay (bike, canoe run) I was racing against this small stocky guy the only way i beat him was ouitkicking him. His name was Reino Keski Salmi and he was on the national xc team. The guy was à 50km specialist but he could run a 2:22 marathon and low 31 for the 10k. Lets just say I have a lot of respect for the sport. You have to bloody fit to do it well. MM I hang out with just a bunch of regular guys a lot of them were never competitive athletes but the general consensus is that we should fund winter/summer sports more ,as a matter we don't spend enough money. I think the powers that be in AC or Sports Canada need to really look at how to support our athletes. Thay need some long term plan in place. It takes a long time to become a world class athlete. I can think over the years the number of good athletes that quit track because the support wasn`t there. We need to identify the talent that is there and give them the necessities they need to succeed. I think for the most part thats why the xc skiers did well. Cheers Kim Good luck with your races this year PS- I had the pleasure of meeting Chandra Crawford in person. What a great person she is and puts a huge amount of time into the sport. She is a wonderful ambassador for sports in Canada. i can see why they have done well with their funding and programs |
|
tb400
Junior Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by tb400 on Apr 9, 2010 18:28:45 GMT -5
This reminds me of the debate as to whether the high performance sport system should be athlete-centered, or should elite athletes should adapt to the sport system. As I understand an athlete centered system, the sport system would be accountable to the athlete, give them the opportunity to exercise control over their lives and would consider the long term consequences of the athlete, among other things. On the other hand if athletes are obligated to adapt to the sport system, then holistic development of athletes less important than the end result of medals and top 8 finishes. If we had a deep talent pool of athletes, I can see the logic in having development system that requires athletes to adapt, since there would be many others vying for a spot on international teams. I see hockey being like this with its elaborate minor league structure, drafts and so on. However if there is a limited pool of athletes, shouldn't the system be designed to cater to the needs of high performance athletes and those with potential, providing them with the resources needed to improve and achieve top results? I understand the need to use objective performance measures to ensure fairness in selection decisions, so long as it is clear and communicated well in advance. However shouldn't athletes and coaches be equal partners in determining these standards and performance goals? Is it ethical to expect development athletes to achieve the same level of performance as a C standard to qualify for funding in some events, or for carding performances to vary drastically from one year to the next? With that in mind, notcanadian makes a good point imho. Is this now the end of athlete centered philosophy by our sport leaders?  |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 9, 2010 18:53:57 GMT -5
This reminds me of the debate as to whether the high performance sport system should be athlete-centered, or should elite athletes should adapt to the sport system. As I understand an athlete centered system, the sport system would be accountable to the athlete, give them the opportunity to exercise control over their lives and would consider the long term consequences of the athlete, among other things. On the other hand if athletes are obligated to adapt to the sport system, then holistic development of athletes less important than the end result of medals and top 8 finishes. If we had a deep talent pool of athletes, I can see the logic in having development system that requires athletes to adapt, since there would be many others vying for a spot on international teams. I see hockey being like this with its elaborate minor league structure, drafts and so on. However if there is a limited pool of athletes, shouldn't the system be designed to cater to the needs of high performance athletes and those with potential, providing them with the resources needed to improve and achieve top results? I understand the need to use objective performance measures to ensure fairness in selection decisions, so long as it is clear and communicated well in advance. However shouldn't athletes and coaches be equal partners in determining these standards and performance goals? Is it ethical to expect development athletes to achieve the same level of performance as a C standard to qualify for funding in some events, or for carding performances to vary drastically from one year to the next? With that in mind, notcanadian makes a good point imho. Is this now the end of athlete centered philosophy by our sport leaders? Nailed it. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 9, 2010 19:00:56 GMT -5
Frankly, I would love it if this panel were entitled something like: "AC and the Pathologies of Elite Sport Administration in the 21st Century". But, its about the long term athlete development-- something on which AC (and Thelma, I presume) are in agreement, at least in theory  |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 9, 2010 20:35:47 GMT -5
You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Frankly in my opinion all you're really suggesting is dragging a healthy horse away from the oasis and into the desert. There's nothing to suggest that athletes would stagnate if they were "forced" to train in a group with other athletes of similar high-level, with good coaches and good support staff. Wow, when I write it that way, it really makes it sound like a horrible idea... |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 9, 2010 20:46:24 GMT -5
Once again, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, High Performance in Canada for events that are over 1500 metres in length, does not exist, according to AC and presumably their Branches, who make zillions of dollars off of memberships, sanctions, sponsors, on the backs of the distance runners that they don't give a shit about... Is this clear?
It's time to take back our part of the sport that most of us care a lot about...
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 9, 2010 20:58:43 GMT -5
If you try to operate a program that goes directly against the perceived interests of the athletes you're trying to administer, you won't have any athletes to administer for very long-- and then where will you be? Why is bringing the best athletes together to train against their perceived interests? Sorry if my "characterization" of athletes was too harsh for you all, but it is unfortunately the case that a lot of high level athletes don't know what is best for them, or at least rely very heavily on their support staff for stuff that you would think they could figure out on their own. I'm saying this from direct experience. I'm sure there are a lot of great people out there, but being a top athlete does not make you a good person. There ARE prima donnas. I used that as one example as why forcing athletes to go to NTC would not work. There are valid reasons why an individual athlete might not fit in, but I suggest that is more a reflection on the athlete than on the NTC system. This is true. But why is there not full consent? I can think of several reasons why athletes would not trust AC. Someone has to blink first though. What we are seeing here is a significant shift in policy from AC. This is what people have been asking for: change it up, what we are doing is not working. In fact, the NTC model is something that many people on this board have been asking for. At least give it a shot. Talk about a high horse. First of all, it was a metaphor. Get over it. Unless you want to talk about structural violence and the power of language etc etc, but you know I decided not to do a PhD so I could avoid such bullshit. It's just a word. I wonder if those athletes would have abandoned if they had an NTC to go to and the support involved there. Anyway, top athletes are like stock animals: they make their money when they perform. They don't make it from their intelligence or their kindness. They are paid to put out. The comparison is apt, when you are talking about the top levels. The comparison is not apt, and I would not make it, in reference to developmental athletes, but once someone makes a decision to make a career out of track and field, they are just like a race horse. They are entertainers. The same is true of all professional athletes, but of course track and field athletes make less money than hockey players, and are less embedded in the psyche of a nation. I probably didn't address it because I didn't see it. But I will address it here. I think that point was made in response to something someone else said, mpd maybe. It is not necessarily true that requiring someone to relocate undermines anything. This is the really big assumption that you all are making that I just don't agree with. Why is bringing athletes together a bad thing? It seems you have one of two answers to this: 1) because it won't make them any better. I don't see any evidence for this. The fact that we haven't used this system and have had some limited success is not evidence that the NTC model doesn't work. 2) because it is not right to force people to move. I can see the autonomy argument, but the solution is simple: don't take the money. If moving to an NTC is so prohibitive, then stay where you are, and make your career that way, but don't take taxpayer money. Prove the system wrong. Of course, this serves to undermine the NTC system because it lowers the level of the training group there, and then people can come back and say, see it doesn't work. But no one is giving it a chance. All of this comes with a big concession: I agree that there is not enough money to support payments to individual athletes. $1500/month is not enough. Which is why moving athletes in to NTC, where many of their costs will be subsidized, is a better solution than just paying them to train on their own. If there was say $3000-4000 a month, then you could pay them that, but they'd have to deal with more of their support stuff on their own. It is the classic public/private question. There's just not enough money to go private. Also, I would use the NCAA system to our advantage. Don't force someone to go to a CIS school, or be at an NTC while in school. That's fine. But when they are done school, if they want to go pro, they should come home to Canada to an NTC. |
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Apr 9, 2010 21:54:46 GMT -5
I think we as fans of distance running need to take responsibility for our sport and wean ourselves off a perceived dependence on government funding assistance that, while helpful, is ultimately only a supplement at best. Substainable funding will only come from the private sector, not from the taxpayer.
I think the problem is not ultimately a lack of money, but the almost complete lack of promotion of the competitive side of the sport. For example, one can watch professional darts on TV because lovers of darts support their sport. Rather then spend our time on message boards bashing one another for whether eating a big mac is the end of the world, we need to work towards developing solutions within our local communities that foster the competitive side of the sport. That may be writing an article in the local paper on an up and coming athlete, starting a low key competitive race, etc.
The US experience shows that there is not one way to revive the sport, but many different solutions (mostly by the private sector) with the ultimate end goal of improving the sport we all love.
So lets give the taxpayer a break and get the private sector involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by schester on Apr 10, 2010 16:30:51 GMT -5
With regards to the economic impact of uprooting and heading off to an NTC, surely it's not that substantial. How much does an athlete really need in order to live and train comfortably and effectively? With the exception of Kamloops and Sherbrooke, all the NTC's are in reasonably sized cities. With 18K contributed by the gov't, an athlete doesn't need to work much to supplement his income and finding a part time job in these cities couldn't be especially difficult. Even a job that pays $10/hr would only require an athlete to work 13-14hrs/week to make 25K. That leaves plenty of time for training, especially considering what guys like Steve Jones have done.
And if he is already making over 25K where he is, what's the need to obtain an additional 18K from the gov't?
|
|
|
|
Post by schester on Apr 10, 2010 16:34:20 GMT -5
Also, it's interesting that Steller draws the parallels to NSERC funding, because this year NSERC drastically cut back (or cut off) funding to a lot of Canadian researchers, much in the same spirit as this here. It'll be really curious to see in a couple weeks when they publish the recipients of the NSERC grants quite how the change can be quantified.
Similarly, it'll be interesting to see the list of athletes who get carded. And, if the stricter standards mean that fewer athletes will recieve carding, where will that difference in money go?
|
|
mae
New Member
Posts: 8 
|
Post by mae on Apr 10, 2010 18:24:27 GMT -5
With regards to the economic impact of uprooting and heading off to an NTC, surely it's not that substantial. How much does an athlete really need in order to live and train comfortably and effectively? With the exception of Kamloops and Sherbrooke, all the NTC's are in reasonably sized cities. With 18K contributed by the gov't, an athlete doesn't need to work much to supplement his income and finding a part time job in these cities couldn't be especially difficult. Even a job that pays $10/hr would only require an athlete to work 13-14hrs/week to make 25K. That leaves plenty of time for training, especially considering what guys like Steve Jones have done. And if he is already making over 25K where he is, what's the need to obtain an additional 18K from the gov't? I know that alot of people want to debate whether essentially forcing an athlete to move to a NTC is a good idea and for sure there are pros and cons. I think some people are simplifying the opportunity/opportunity cost. Distance running is not a team sport and a team approach may not work for all athletes. Different coaches bring very different strengths and weaknesses to the table and forcing an athlete to work with a coach because they are the NTC coach and their life line to finances, support, carding etc could be quite detrimental to certain athletes, at least I know it would be for me. Then there's to the whole cost side. You may think $18,000 is "enough" money to be the incentive to move to a City (ie Victoria) but have you looked at the cost of housing in Victoria lately? Have you considered the general cost of living on an island where everything is imported and to go anywhere you need to take a ferry or expensive 13 min flight to the mainland for meets, to get "home", to get anywhere else on the Continent? Or that while the NTC may be based in Victoria, the group spend 6 months of the year in Phoenix so the option for actually living in Canada to train is not really apparent. Now you are paying to get to Phoenix, sublet (which is $$ in the winter) or get a non-furnished place and buy up Craigslist, rent a car/buy a bike/ etc 1/2 the year while perhaps maintaining a base somewhere else in Canada, especially if you have a non-running partner who is pursuing own career opportunities in the country of own citizenship. And that only gets you through the winter because then there is the summer track season and you need to find a European base for 6 wks for the year to actually get the competitive opportunities after Harry Jerome and Vic international are done...we all know Europe is cheap! Carding only subsidizes athletics, but it is no way a fully supportive system. The NTC need to be able to provide a better option than what it currently offers to be successful. Maybe more like a USA training center or something with housing and board support near training facilities, etc. (I know way too expensive). But as it stands, move to Vic, be part of a training group that is singularly focussed on 1 athlete / "event group", but really be in Phoenix and unless you have a major sponsorship, all expenses for living/training/competing are are your own on $18K a year (and I realize people CAN work but if you are away more than home your boss starts to get impatient). And we wonder why people aren't signing up for the NTC??? Reality. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 10, 2010 18:48:29 GMT -5
With regards to the economic impact of uprooting and heading off to an NTC, surely it's not that substantial. How much does an athlete really need in order to live and train comfortably and effectively? With the exception of Kamloops and Sherbrooke, all the NTC's are in reasonably sized cities. With 18K contributed by the gov't, an athlete doesn't need to work much to supplement his income and finding a part time job in these cities couldn't be especially difficult. Even a job that pays $10/hr would only require an athlete to work 13-14hrs/week to make 25K. That leaves plenty of time for training, especially considering what guys like Steve Jones have done. And if he is already making over 25K where he is, what's the need to obtain an additional 18K from the gov't? I know that alot of people want to debate whether essentially forcing an athlete to move to a NTC is a good idea and for sure there are pros and cons. I think some people are simplifying the opportunity/opportunity cost. Distance running is not a team sport and a team approach may not work for all athletes. Different coaches bring very different strengths and weaknesses to the table and forcing an athlete to work with a coach because they are the NTC coach and their life line to finances, support, carding etc could be quite detrimental to certain athletes, at least I know it would be for me. Then there's to the whole cost side. You may think $18,000 is "enough" money to be the incentive to move to a City (ie Victoria) but have you looked at the cost of housing in Victoria lately? Have you considered the general cost of living on an island where everything is imported and to go anywhere you need to take a ferry or expensive 13 min flight to the mainland for meets, to get "home", to get anywhere else on the Continent? Or that while the NTC may be based in Victoria, the group spend 6 months of the year in Phoenix so the option for actually living in Canada to train is not really apparent. Now you are paying to get to Phoenix, sublet (which is $$ in the winter) or get a non-furnished place and buy up Craigslist, rent a car/buy a bike/ etc 1/2 the year while perhaps maintaining a base somewhere else in Canada, especially if you have a non-running partner who is pursuing own career opportunities in the country of own citizenship. And that only gets you through the winter because then there is the summer track season and you need to find a European base for 6 wks for the year to actually get the competitive opportunities after Harry Jerome and Vic international are done...we all know Europe is cheap! Carding only subsidizes athletics, but it is no way a fully supportive system. The NTC need to be able to provide a better option than what it currently offers to be successful. Maybe more like a USA training center or something with housing and board support near training facilities, etc. (I know way too expensive). But as it stands, move to Vic, be part of a training group that is singularly focussed on 1 athlete / "event group", but really be in Phoenix and unless you have a major sponsorship, all expenses for living/training/competing are are your own on $18K a year (and I realize people CAN work but if you are away more than home your boss starts to get impatient). And we wonder why people aren't signing up for the NTC??? Reality. That is a very powerful and insightful post, imho... |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 11, 2010 10:20:56 GMT -5
If you try to operate a program that goes directly against the perceived interests of the athletes you're trying to administer, you won't have any athletes to administer for very long-- and then where will you be? Why is bringing the best athletes together to train against their perceived interests? Sorry if my "characterization" of athletes was too harsh for you all, but it is unfortunately the case that a lot of high level athletes don't know what is best for them, or at least rely very heavily on their support staff for stuff that you would think they could figure out on their own. I'm saying this from direct experience. I'm sure there are a lot of great people out there, but being a top athlete does not make you a good person. There ARE prima donnas. I used that as one example as why forcing athletes to go to NTC would not work. There are valid reasons why an individual athlete might not fit in, but I suggest that is more a reflection on the athlete than on the NTC system. This is true. But why is there not full consent? I can think of several reasons why athletes would not trust AC. Someone has to blink first though. What we are seeing here is a significant shift in policy from AC. This is what people have been asking for: change it up, what we are doing is not working. In fact, the NTC model is something that many people on this board have been asking for. At least give it a shot. Talk about a high horse. First of all, it was a metaphor. Get over it. Unless you want to talk about structural violence and the power of language etc etc, but you know I decided not to do a PhD so I could avoid such bullshit. It's just a word. I wonder if those athletes would have abandoned if they had an NTC to go to and the support involved there. Anyway, top athletes are like stock animals: they make their money when they perform. They don't make it from their intelligence or their kindness. They are paid to put out. The comparison is apt, when you are talking about the top levels. The comparison is not apt, and I would not make it, in reference to developmental athletes, but once someone makes a decision to make a career out of track and field, they are just like a race horse. They are entertainers. The same is true of all professional athletes, but of course track and field athletes make less money than hockey players, and are less embedded in the psyche of a nation. I probably didn't address it because I didn't see it. But I will address it here. I think that point was made in response to something someone else said, mpd maybe. It is not necessarily true that requiring someone to relocate undermines anything. This is the really big assumption that you all are making that I just don't agree with. Why is bringing athletes together a bad thing? It seems you have one of two answers to this: 1) because it won't make them any better. I don't see any evidence for this. The fact that we haven't used this system and have had some limited success is not evidence that the NTC model doesn't work. 2) because it is not right to force people to move. I can see the autonomy argument, but the solution is simple: don't take the money. If moving to an NTC is so prohibitive, then stay where you are, and make your career that way, but don't take taxpayer money. Prove the system wrong. Of course, this serves to undermine the NTC system because it lowers the level of the training group there, and then people can come back and say, see it doesn't work. But no one is giving it a chance. All of this comes with a big concession: I agree that there is not enough money to support payments to individual athletes. $1500/month is not enough. Which is why moving athletes in to NTC, where many of their costs will be subsidized, is a better solution than just paying them to train on their own. If there was say $3000-4000 a month, then you could pay them that, but they'd have to deal with more of their support stuff on their own. It is the classic public/private question. There's just not enough money to go private. Also, I would use the NCAA system to our advantage. Don't force someone to go to a CIS school, or be at an NTC while in school. That's fine. But when they are done school, if they want to go pro, they should come home to Canada to an NTC. Thanks for at least upping the comedy quotient in this thread. First you berate me for not recognizing the metaphorical nature of your "horse to water" statement, then, not three sentences later, you say "but athletes really are like stock animals"! Beautiful! And, BTW, you should consider becoming a part of the sport bureaucracy that you think knows athletes own interests better than they do. With ideas like this, and your deft way of putting them, you'd be a huge hit with the athletes themselves! In general, I get where you're coming from: You think athletes themselves are generally the problem with Canadian track, and you'd like to see some higher authority start using it's financial leverage to put them into line, for their own good and that of "the sport". Fine. But, you speak as if this whole thing were more than hypothetical (including your reference to specific "prima donna" athletes). At the moment, there IS no high performance centre catering to long distance runners, as Ron and others keep pointing out. But, since you DO appear to want to get specific, which of the tiny handful of carded (or formerly carded) Canadian distance runners would you like to see induced to pick up and leave their current situation by means of the threatened removal of his/her carding? Would it be Simon Bairu, who has managed to avail himself of the support of the best training group in North America, and who is now running better than ever (while also probably doing much to secure his own future post-retirement, through both his performances, profile, and connections)? And what about the Speed River guys, Gillis and Coolsaet? Should they be asked to leave Guelph and the coach who has done so much to create a program that has brought them from relative obscurity to the fringe of world-class? What part of their percieved interests are they getting wrong? Or what about Dylan Wykes, who is doing exactly what the Athletics Canada carding guidelines require him to do, which is find a way to meet his current needs while taking steps to secure his financial well being post-retirement by taking a specialized graduate degree at a university in the city where his coach lives? And, again (for the third time) we get it: They can all choose to refuse their carding if they don't want to do what some sport bureaucrat thinks is best for them. You evidently think the fact that AC/Sport Canada has the power to do this is itself an argument for doing it. Other than the need for "change" (apparently, any kind will do), and references to stubborn, selfish prima donnas (about whom you claim to have some inside knowledge that trumps others' knowledge of elite athletes as intelligent, generous and self-sacrificing), you haven't given one argument for why, in the current situation here in Canada, this would be better than the "athlete centred" approached referenced by tb400. And, we also understand that the argument might be different if we were talking about some fabulous "all-inclusive" NTC. But, again, this is all hypothetical-- VERY hypothetical, because AC has apparently given up on the notion of even a cheap-ass NTC for distance runners. Based on this and your comments in the thread about running, "teams" and coaching, I'm beginning to conclude that you just have a fetish for authority and telling people what to do, pure and simple. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 11, 2010 20:40:50 GMT -5
I've been away for a week, so I guess I missed most of the excitement on this thread. A couple of thoughts, though. It's clear that, from an athlete's perspective, tying carding money to a particular location or training program is antithetical to the nature of the sport. If the goal is to help the athletes who are already at or near world class to maximize the performance, then no-strings-attached cash is probably as good a tool as any.
However, I think it's worth noting that what's in the best interests of individual athletes isn't necessarily what's in the best interests of the sport (or, more generally, society) in the long term. If you compare the structure of the sport here versus the U.S., we're much farther along the athlete-centred model. There's no equivalent of carding in the U.S., but all their teams are fully funded, there's significant prize money at many national championships, they pay travel expenses for Olympic Trials qualifiers, and full-time coaching is a common and reasonably well-funded career path. Obviously the situations aren't perfectly comparable because more sponsorship money is available in the U.S. But it's clear that, in allocating the resources at its disposal, USATF spends a much higher proportion on developing strong institutions (meets, championships, national teams, training centres) than we do here. I don't know which is better, but I think it's important to at least understand the different perspectives.
In reality, of course, carding money is from Sport Canada not AC, so there's no option to rethink how that money is used. With that in mind, I don't think a halfway option -- tying up carding money with all sorts of conditions in an attempt to compel athletes to do what you think they should do -- would be productive or fair. Judge (and reward) the result, not the process.
On a separate note, I'm curious about how the new carding standards and procedures will play out in practice. I'm assuming AC hasn't been stupid enough to set standards so high that they won't be able to give out their maximum number of allocated cards. If that's the case, what is the main difference from the old criteria, other than lots of complicated math? From the table of standards, I'm gathering that it tilts the field in favour of younger athletes and away from late-20s and early-30s athletes -- is that it?
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 11, 2010 22:49:30 GMT -5
Based on this and your comments in the thread about running, "teams" and coaching, I'm beginning to conclude that you just have a fetish for authority and telling people what to do, pure and simple. Of course I do, I'm in law school. Oldster, don't put words in my mouth. I think you are misunderstanding my position. Clearly you are a staunch libertarian, and that's a valid political position, but that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Suggesting that authority might be well-positioned to make decisions on behalf of the group is hardly fascist. My feelings on this relocation requirement (that apparently is not enforced anyway so why are we arguing about it?) are simply that it might be a good thing if people gave it a try. You are trying to find everything possible wrong with it. I'm saying, hey, why not put everyone together and see how that goes. Yes, why not have Simon, Dylan, Reid and Eric train together? Wouldn't that be fun? Isn't that what some people on this board have been lamenting at other times? That we don't have a critical mass of good distance runners? And the opportunity is there, and all of a sudden it's a bad idea? I'm confused. The way ahutch described the American system sounds a lot like what you wanted the Canadian system to look like when you were decrying the loss of our cross country program. An institutional model can work very well. Here's an article about the benefits of running in a group. Not from a scientific journal, but interesting anyway: runningmagazine.ca/2009/04/sections/training/training-zone-front-running/Poor RonB is like a voice in the wilderness, posting a few times about the event-focus issue. I agree, it is sad that there is no stated plan for distance running there. But in answer to someone else's question, I think that it is not laziness, or lack of interest, but appreciation for a job well-done, that leads the Speed River and BMP groups to be left to their own devices. That is decidedly non-interventionist and non-meddling. We criticise when they meddle and we criticise when they ignore. It's like this bad chick-flick I watched with my girlfriend last night about a girl and her mother who was trying to set her up on internet dates...such an emotional roller-coaster! As for the athletes as horses metaphor, have you ever smelled one of them after a workout? I have to retreat to my ivory tower and have my milk bath post-haste, just to be rid of the stench! |
|
|
|
Post by speedgoggles on Apr 12, 2010 8:47:39 GMT -5
As for the athletes as horses metaphor, have you ever smelled one of them after a workout? I have to retreat to my ivory tower and have my milk bath post-haste, just to be rid of the stench! The main difference between runners and horses is that it is an acceptable practice to shoot them after they break one of their legs... |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 12, 2010 10:08:06 GMT -5
Journeyman - "poor RonB is like a voice in the wilderness". Do you really feel that way, or are you just trying to wind me up some more? I think that the specific point about mid-long distance running not being included in AC's High Performance plan is resonating with a lot of people, judging by reactions both in here, and via other forums. We'll see how it all plays out. Now, I've got to get some writing done on that other thread...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 12, 2010 11:23:46 GMT -5
Journeyman, of course I'd be for an "institutional" approach to (re)building the sport in Canada. In fact, I said so in this very thread, when I agreed with Mattmc that supporting individual athletes is not an ideal solution. What we have been arguing about is the efficacy (never mind the ethics or ideology; which, actually, don't even have to be entered into) of requiring our best athletes to enter an NTC environment in return for their carding. In my view, the only way to make an NTC system work for the sport is to make it so good that athletes won't have to be compelled to enter it; they will instead be clamouring to enter, and will be willing to accept whatever rules and restrictions they might entail in return for the benefits. At this point, AC/Sport Canada needs a "stay in Canada" rule because, ironically, it recognizes that many athletes don't see staying in Canada the best option for them! And their non-enforcement of this rule absolutely proves the point I've been trying to make: that compelling individual athletes to violate their perceived interests is counterproductive; and, that if you persist, sooner or later you risk having no athletes left to administer.
And of course I'd like to see our best guys training together; but, the thought of them training together under a coach and in a location not of their choosing, simply in order to hang onto their carding money, makes me sad, not excited. In any case, I can say with some confidence that most would forgo their carding or quit altogether before ever letting this happen. No amount of semantics or rule-setting is ever going to turn running into a "team" sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by maser on Apr 12, 2010 11:55:04 GMT -5
Oldster. You make some good points. I think for any athlete to succeed they have to be in an environment that suits them. As a matter of fact I think that applies to anyone athletes or not. I'm not sure if the NTC approach is the best idea. I've seen attempts at this in the past. One thing I've noticed if you get a lot of good runners together, with coaches they like and areas they want to live in they do well. If you create this environment you can get some pretty good results. DST at Guelph seem to have a pretty good thing going there. TOC used to have a pretty good core of runners as did several other clubs. Maybe we could look at that.
There was a really good club back in the UK called the Gateshead
Harriers they had a phenomenal kids up to elite program that produced some really good athletes. We also used to have some pretty good fields in Beacon Hill in Vic back in the day for XC. Victoria was a real hotbed of talent. When I was in the Okanagan we had some pretty phenomenal runners around like
Phil E, Ken French and some very good female runners. The atmosphere, coaching, competitive environment and the climate
had a lot to do with this.
The only point I don't agree with you on is the staying in the country. If you're given a chance for a full scholarship it's pretty hard to turn down given the expense of education these days.
But on the other hand I 've seen the opposite as well.
Unfortunately Canadian universities don't have the same endowment funds as the American universties
Cheers
KM
|
|
