|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 12, 2010 15:03:41 GMT -5
True indeed, Maser. I've been around long enough to remember when we had 4 or 5 Speed River-type training centres, some of which got a little gov't money, but most not. The thing was, they all formed voluntarily and somewhat spontaneously, once a critical mass of factors-- mainly locale and coaching, but also the luck of having a few very good people who happen to be from the area (e.g. the Craig brothers and Drayton in T.O.)-- appeared. You would need an awful lot more money than currently goes into the sport in the form of carding and NTC support to replicate on a grander scale what happen in these smaller centres. Simple economics tends to make it more feasible to support many smaller centres in places where good athletes have already begun to gather, for reasons specific to their own situations, than building one or two bigger ones which you then set out "from above" to induce athletes to join. Even the Africans tend to keep their training groups centred locally in-country, rather than compelling athletes to move to bigger centres where, theoretically, they would be easier and cheaper to service. The commitment of individual athletes to their local groups and coaches in Kenya is such that making them come together even once a year pre-WXC sometimes presents problems. To repeat from another thread: running is an individual sport for which athletes sometimes choose to train in groups; it therefore can't be successfully administered as a "team" sport without very significant positive inducements (e.g. free education). Without such inducements, runners will tend to remain pretty adamant about doing their own thing.
About the whole staying in Canada thing, it can certainly be make to work; but, only if it is freely chosen and well supported. I disagree that any requirement to stay in Canada, under the current system, could work better in terms of producing top athletes than the current approach of letting athletes choose where and under whom they'd like to train. The only reasonable defense of the former that I can envision is one that says we care more about seeing athletes training in Canada and spending their carding dollars here than we do about overall success-- a fair enough argument, but one that I don't support. Our support system would have to change drastically before a genuine repatriation of our athletes (a la, for instance, Jamaican sprinters) would lead to better results than the current arrangement.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 13, 2010 14:12:43 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... I was agreeing with you. Sorry, I guess varying between sarcastic and sincere in the same post is not helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 13, 2010 14:15:51 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. Ok, that's a reasonable response for sure. I guess the problem is which comes first? How do you rebuild the trust so that they are clamouring for it? Ordering everyone together may ruffle feathers, but what if it worked? Then they'd be clamouring. I suppose it is fair to say the risks are too great, but why the fear? |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 13, 2010 14:19:29 GMT -5
The thing was, they all formed voluntarily and somewhat spontaneously, once a critical mass of factors-- mainly locale and coaching, but also the luck of having a few very good people who happen to be from the area (e.g. the Craig brothers and Drayton in T.O.)-- appeared. This is great, but is this the kind of plan we want from our NSO? Spontaenous voluntary formation of training groups? There has to be some leadership, and there has to be some following, too. Leadership would invlove jumping on whatever spontaneously forming groups out there seem likely to succeed (SR, BMP, PIH) would be one way. The athletes would need to take advantage of those centres as well for it to work. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 13, 2010 17:02:57 GMT -5
This is great, but is this the kind of plan we want from our NSO? Spontaenous voluntary formation of training groups? There has to be some leadership, and there has to be some following, too. I think this exactly what oldster was warning against earlier in the thread -- the idea that just because you have power, you have to demonstrate it by using it. There are many ways that the NSO can show leadership (e.g. by hosting strong championships, supporting teams, providing expertise for coaches) that don't involve micromanaging athletes' lives. This is not like interior design, where you can move a couch to the opposite wall to see how it looks, and move it back if it doesn't work. These are people's lives, so you have have a far higher standard of evidence than "What we're doing now isn't working, so it's worth trying something different in case that works better" before you force them to uproot. In some cases -- working on relay exchanges, say -- there are compelling arguments. In other cases (better access to massage and forced training with a coach not of your choice), not so much. This reminds me of that scene in Once A Runner where Bruce Denton goes to the head of the university to protest Cassidy's expulsion from the team over a ridiculous dress code. Prigman explains that athletes need to have discipline and follow orders, like in the military. Denton says something along the lines of "Yes, but good generals don't order their soldiers to eat shit just for the hell of it." |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 14, 2010 9:22:34 GMT -5
This is great, but is this the kind of plan we want from our NSO? Spontaenous voluntary formation of training groups? There has to be some leadership, and there has to be some following, too. I think this exactly what oldster was warning against earlier in the thread -- the idea that just because you have power, you have to demonstrate it by using it. There are many ways that the NSO can show leadership (e.g. by hosting strong championships, supporting teams, providing expertise for coaches) that don't involve micromanaging athletes' lives. This is not like interior design, where you can move a couch to the opposite wall to see how it looks, and move it back if it doesn't work. These are people's lives, so you have have a far higher standard of evidence than "What we're doing now isn't working, so it's worth trying something different in case that works better" before you force them to uproot. In some cases -- working on relay exchanges, say -- there are compelling arguments. In other cases (better access to massage and forced training with a coach not of your choice), not so much. This reminds me of that scene in Once A Runner where Bruce Denton goes to the head of the university to protest Cassidy's expulsion from the team over a ridiculous dress code. Prigman explains that athletes need to have discipline and follow orders, like in the military. Denton says something along the lines of "Yes, but good generals don't order their soldiers to eat shit just for the hell of it." Certainly not for the hell of it. Paternalism is not by definition wrong or ineffective. It's become an academic cuss word, but we all respect our parents right? Until we become teenagers and decide we know better. Then we grow up and realise our parents were right in the first place. The problem is that AC has maybe not shown itself to be such a great parent in recent years, at least in the eyes of some. So I get the mistrust, but that doesn't mean the system can't work. I don't view bringing athletes to a NTC as micromanaging. It all depends how you do it. I disagree that this particular clause is an example of a misuse of power. I don't believe that this "coach not of your choice" thing is such a big deal either. How many athletes actively choose their coach? We mostly end up with a) high school coach b) club coach in our city c) university coach. We like familiarity, but rarely does an athlete make a decision based soley on who the coach will be. An athlete doesn't move somewhere to be with a good coach--they usually stay with the coach in the place most convenient for them. This to me says the choice of coach is not all that important. Oldster likes to point out how little difference a coach makes anyway. Besides, this assumes that the coach at the NTC is not going to be good. Why assume that? Why not assume that you can get the best coaching at these places? Uprooting one's life is a better argument, but it would not be such a great sacrifice to gain the benefits of group training and support staff, if it's an improvement on the current situation, training-wise. Again, it seems to work for XC skiing. Why would it not work for distance running? Why is that comparison not valid? |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 14, 2010 11:00:02 GMT -5
I think this exactly what oldster was warning against earlier in the thread -- the idea that just because you have power, you have to demonstrate it by using it. There are many ways that the NSO can show leadership (e.g. by hosting strong championships, supporting teams, providing expertise for coaches) that don't involve micromanaging athletes' lives. This is not like interior design, where you can move a couch to the opposite wall to see how it looks, and move it back if it doesn't work. These are people's lives, so you have have a far higher standard of evidence than "What we're doing now isn't working, so it's worth trying something different in case that works better" before you force them to uproot. In some cases -- working on relay exchanges, say -- there are compelling arguments. In other cases (better access to massage and forced training with a coach not of your choice), not so much. This reminds me of that scene in Once A Runner where Bruce Denton goes to the head of the university to protest Cassidy's expulsion from the team over a ridiculous dress code. Prigman explains that athletes need to have discipline and follow orders, like in the military. Denton says something along the lines of "Yes, but good generals don't order their soldiers to eat shit just for the hell of it." Certainly not for the hell of it. Paternalism is not by definition wrong or ineffective. It's become an academic cuss word, but we all respect our parents right? Until we become teenagers and decide we know better. Then we grow up and realise our parents were right in the first place. The problem is that AC has maybe not shown itself to be such a great parent in recent years, at least in the eyes of some. So I get the mistrust, but that doesn't mean the system can't work. I don't view bringing athletes to a NTC as micromanaging. It all depends how you do it. I disagree that this particular clause is an example of a misuse of power. I don't believe that this "coach not of your choice" thing is such a big deal either. How many athletes actively choose their coach? We mostly end up with a) high school coach b) club coach in our city c) university coach. We like familiarity, but rarely does an athlete make a decision based soley on who the coach will be. An athlete doesn't move somewhere to be with a good coach--they usually stay with the coach in the place most convenient for them. This to me says the choice of coach is not all that important. Oldster likes to point out how little difference a coach makes anyway. Besides, this assumes that the coach at the NTC is not going to be good. Why assume that? Why not assume that you can get the best coaching at these places? Uprooting one's life is a better argument, but it would not be such a great sacrifice to gain the benefits of group training and support staff, if it's an improvement on the current situation, training-wise. Again, it seems to work for XC skiing. Why would it not work for distance running? Why is that comparison not valid? "Paternalism" has a bad name because it entails an assumption about "natural" inequalities relating to the possession of special knowledge, experience, or even a divine designation. There is some basis for this assumption of "natural" inequality when it comes to parents and children; but, history has by and large rejected it as pertaining to relations between adults (at least in our political and legal tradition-- notwithstanding our particular monarchical vestiges). And most defenders of "paternalism" do so because they imagine themselves in the role of parent, not child. (That, or else perhaps they have been raised in the Roman Catholic tradition, which has never been cool with the whole idea of natural human equality, to say the least!). The rest of us, in general, would like the use of authority limited to situations wherein it is strictly necessary; and, even then, to be checked by the basic rights of those on whom it is enforced. When it comes to power-holders who are simply appointed to positions of power-- i.e. down a long chain from those who were, by some democratic process, elected to their positions-- people tend to get very justifiably upset about the exercise of "paternalistic" authority. Anyway, you can choose to lecture athletes about their own best interests, and/or insist that they should set these aside for "the greater good"; but, they are still going to take it or leave it based on their perception of their interests. Sooner or later, you must appeal to these interests as athletes themselves define them if you want to have athletes to administer. It's going to take a lot more than the power of withholding a one year guarantee of $18000 to get our best athletes to set aside their own assessment of what's best for them, whatever that might be, and whatever you or anyone else might think of that assessment. AC would have two choices: ratchet up the rules a notch to include selectability to national teams (the "power" approach you seem to favour); or, sweeten the incentives to alter the cost-benefit analysis for athletes (not really AC's style). The one thing that is probably NOT going to have any effect is telling athletes they are wrong about their current assessment of their own best interests. People tend to put a lot of thought into figuring out what's best for them-- particularly highly accomplished people-- and therefore generally know this far better than anyone who is not them. Speaking from experience, the life of an elite athlete in a sport like distance running in a country like Canada is already so quixotic that the last thing you need is some alleged expert (who's usually just an abject careerist) in a comfortable, government funded job, and who knows nothing about your life, trying to tell you what to do. This is all that many athletes, hard pressed by the reality of preparing for life after sport, would need to say "screw it". Unless "the system" were prepared to offer much more than it does to athletes, any tightening of rules is bound to simply drive people out of the sport. And, hutch, loved the Once a Runner reference! |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Apr 14, 2010 12:13:25 GMT -5
How many athletes actively choose their coach? We mostly end up with a) high school coach b) club coach in our city c) university coach. We like familiarity, but rarely does an athlete make a decision based soley on who the coach will be. An athlete doesn't move somewhere to be with a good coach--they usually stay with the coach in the place most convenient for them. This to me says the choice of coach is not all that important. Really? Within the context of National-level carding you're questioning how many athletes actively choose their coach and suggesting that most simply stay with a school-based coach (that they didn't actively choose) or the most proximal club coach? With FISU still on my mind, my thoughts went immediately to the 9 athletes representing Canada at what is a B (C?) level International competition with athletes mainly in their early-20s - a pretty key demographic for future National-level carding applicants. I would suggest that most of the 9 FIXU XC athletes have already made very 'active' decisions regarding their current coaches. And by suggest, I mean I know for a fact that the majority of these 9 athletes have made very specific decisions in choosing their current school and/or club coaches. Athletes might not (and don't have to) make a decision based "solely" on who the coach will be, but a great coach is often the focal point of the training environment and surrounding community. As such, athletes may not choose to move to Guelph/BC/TO/etc. for the short/long-term SOLELY because of 1 coach - but moreso because of available training partners, etc. - but it DOES NOT MATTER because the available training partners, etc. are (often) there because of the coach. With regards to National level carding and athlete relocation, we are not talking about high school/age group champs with 'potential' nor are we talking about 30+ year old Dr. MattMc with family in tow: we're talking about collegiate/early post-collegiate athletes. While moving East Coast <----> West Coast for a multi-year commitment is a huge decision, there are a lot of people in Guelph, TO, Windsor, London (and many more cities) who have made significant decisions to either move OR to stay/train/race for a summer/training block, based mainly on the coach/training group/racing opportunities. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 14, 2010 12:39:32 GMT -5
Nicely put, Steve. To suggest that most athletes "don't actively choose their coach" is among the most completely out of touch things any otherwise sensible, adult poster has ever said on this board. I have athletes as young as 14 making real sacrifices-- including standing up to other adults in positions of authority-- in order to work with the coach of their choice; and, a big part of the decision of high school athletes concerning where to do their university running is based on coaching.
I once (notoriously) quipped that I thought that coaching expertise contributed about 10 per cent to the success of a given athlete-- and I would generally stick by that; however, as you so eloquently described it, the coach is often the key that unlocks a series of other interrelated factors that combine to contribute far more than 10% to the equation-- factors like training partners, sponsorship, and facilities-- particularly when the coach happens to be an energetic supporter and promoter of the sport in general within his/her community. And, of course, 10% is still quite a bit of the equation, compared with any other single variable-- certainly enough to get someone to make some sacrifices to optimize it. If you lose by 10%, you're not even in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by powerboy on Apr 14, 2010 13:04:46 GMT -5
I think there is a certain truth in both comments. My observation is that perhaps not enough athletes actively seek out a new coach because of convenience, loyalty, school affiliation etc., all of which are valid reasons not to change. And on the other hand, many good athletes do perform some form of assessment and change if required. Of course, sometimes athletes change for a group and not just for a coach, but that is an equally valid reason. At the world class level it seems there is some natural burnout factor that occurs.(Ritz, Flanagan, Mottram) How many coaches ever admit/suggest that their athletes might be better off with someone else? When Charlie Francis was an acknowleged super coach, were c oaches of 10.6 runners advising their kids to switch? My instinct says no, but I would be happy to be wrong. (no diatibres about drugs required.)
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 14, 2010 17:33:37 GMT -5
If we are talking about athletes in a position to be carded (and we were, although journeyman's comment was made as a general statement), then the rate at which athletes actively choose their own coach becomes much, much higher. Are they "wrong" to place such store in their choice of coach, as journeyman seems to want to suggest? Who's to say? My point all along has been that if an athlete strongly believes that this choice is important, then it becomes important, and should not to be effaced by means of rule-making. If you want to try convincing athletes that taking this choice seriously is misplaced, or arguing with them about which coach is "better" (as though there could be an universal and objective measure), you can go ahead. But you'll likely need more than rules-- i.e. something which is just a valuable, or more valuable, to them as coaching-- to induce them to make a change. The same would go for training locale and all of the other key variables.
You raise an interesting point about coaches' willingness, or lack thereof, to recognize when they've done all they can for an athlete, or when there is perhaps a better arrangement available for them. I don't think there's enough of this in coaching today. It's usually athletes themselves who have to initiate such a move. As for the Francis example, nothing could have stopped most young sprinters from working with him back when he was in his prime, if he gave them the nod. Other sprint coaches may not have been suggesting it, but I don't think that ever mattered (spoken as someone who had a close friend in that group).
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 14, 2010 17:48:09 GMT -5
You raise an interesting point about coaches' willingness, or lack thereof, to recognize when they've done all they can for an athlete, or when there is perhaps a better arrangement available for them. I don't think there's enough of this in coaching today. I don't intend this to be rude, but it may come across that way, being personal and rather direct - Steve, have you ever referred one of your senior (or masters or junior I guess) athletes on to a different coaching situation after deciding that things didn't seem to be working? |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 14, 2010 18:46:06 GMT -5
How many athletes actively choose their coach? We mostly end up with a) high school coach b) club coach in our city c) university coach. Steve W. already addressed this, but I want to emphasize that I think you're way off base here if you're talking about athletes at a level to get carded, as opposed to recreational athletes. Whether you're talking about Sully commuting from Illinois to D.C. to train with his new coach a few years ago, Ritz selling his recently purchased house to move to Salazar's group, or Flanagan leaving Cook's group after he led her to an Olympic medal, professional runners make very serious, hard-thought decisions about their coaching situations, and are more than willing to make the sacrifices you demand -- on their own terms. Take even someone like Alan Webb, who controversially left Michigan to return to his high school coach, then had fantastic success followed by disappointing results, then left his high school coach and moved across the country to go to Salazar's group. You can argue that his judgment was clouded by too much loyalty to his high school coach, but you certainly can't argue that he wasn't putting a lot of thought into where and with whom he trained. And if you think his situation would have been better if only some wise all-knowing bureaucrat had issued a diktat ordering him to report to a certain coach in a certain location, then I think (a) you're vastly overestimating the ability of these bureaucrats to make the "right" decisions for a bunch of people they don't even know, and (b) you're vastly underestimating the ability -- and desire -- of athletes to make rational decisions in their own best interest. I have some sympathy with McInnes's desire to use government money to strengthen the sport in Canada. But the major benefits I see with his approach accrue to the sport and to society in general -- i.e. having role models present for younger athletes and higher visibility in the community. For the athletes themselves, the benefits (training partners, medical support, etc.) are much more marginal compared to what they're able to arrange on their own. So if you want to pour money into training centres instead of carding individual athletes, be honest about it and say that it's to build the sport, don't pretend that it's because we know better than the athletes what's good for them. |
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Apr 14, 2010 19:24:29 GMT -5
Hutch, interesting that for 2 of those examples (Ritz and Webb), the change to Salazar was rumored to have been related to at least mild coercion by Nike. Nike is now clearly starting to tie their sponsorship $$ to affiliation with coaches-training groups.
MM
|
|
|
|
Post by maser on Apr 14, 2010 19:39:35 GMT -5
Salazar"s realtionship with Nike goes back to when he was in his prime. Nike was a company with people like Bowerman and Pre.
They have their history and they have a lot of money. They will sponsor athletes that will raise their profile. They also look after their elite athletes. The support for them is pretty good. Salazar like Prefontaine is a legend in American running, so that in itself a will attract talent and produce results. The company can then promote their products and profile the athletes using the gear.
It's worked well for them in most sports.
Cheers
KM
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 14, 2010 20:53:57 GMT -5
Matty, I'm going to ask for a higher standard of evidence than anonymous letsrun posts!
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 14, 2010 21:04:14 GMT -5
You raise an interesting point about coaches' willingness, or lack thereof, to recognize when they've done all they can for an athlete, or when there is perhaps a better arrangement available for them. I don't think there's enough of this in coaching today. I don't intend this to be rude, but it may come across that way, being personal and rather direct - Steve, have you ever referred one of your senior (or masters or junior I guess) athletes on to a different coaching situation after deciding that things didn't seem to be working? No worries, pq. This is a fair question. And the answer is: yes. I have both suggested to athletes that they would be better working with another coach, as well as telling them to think very hard about whether to work with me in the first place.) |
|
|
|
Post by nscoach67 on Apr 15, 2010 10:48:18 GMT -5
While moving East Coast <----> West Coast for a multi-year commitment is a huge decision, there are a lot of people in Guelph, TO, Windsor, London (and many more cities) who have made significant decisions to either move OR to stay/train/race for a summer/training block, based mainly on the coach/training group/racing opportunities. I with Oldster and Weiler, but can we please at some point stop calling Windsor, ON and Guelph, ON the east coast. If I were to drive to Guelph it's 24 hours straight from this part of the east coast. Individual sport, individual solutions too. What worked for Paul McCloy in parking garages for speed work in the winter, may not work for everyone. Having said that a new kid came to my club the other day, because his family heard good things. The kid is 10, I was that kid once, whether he gets carded or not, wins or no, I have a responsibility which I take very seriously to do the best job that I can for him. If all coaches do more of that thinking, then athletes get better. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Apr 15, 2010 13:13:46 GMT -5
While moving East Coast <----> West Coast for a multi-year commitment is a huge decision, there are a lot of people in Guelph, TO, Windsor, London (and many more cities) who have made significant decisions to either move OR to stay/train/race for a summer/training block, based mainly on the coach/training group/racing opportunities. I with Oldster and Weiler, but can we please at some point stop calling Windsor, ON and Guelph, ON the east coast. If I were to drive to Guelph it's 24 hours straight from this part of the east coast. Individual sport, individual solutions too. What worked for Paul McCloy in parking garages for speed work in the winter, may not work for everyone. Having said that a new kid came to my club the other day, because his family heard good things. The kid is 10, I was that kid once, whether he gets carded or not, wins or no, I have a responsibility which I take very seriously to do the best job that I can for him. If all coaches do more of that thinking, then athletes get better. Interesting - how do you know I wasn't referring to this area as the West coast? I see nothing within the quoted text to suggest either. Let me word my thoughts more clearly: Moving West Coast <----> East Coast for a multi-year commitment is a huge decision. However, that's not to say athletes aren't making smaller - but still important - decisions. In the area I'm most familiar with (Windsor-TO), there are many athletes who are choosing to stay/train/race for a summer/training block, based mainly on the coach/training group/racing opportunities. A good example of this is university athletes from a smaller community 1-6 hours away that choose to stay in one of the larger cities over the summer because they see the value of the training environment to be worth the cost of the summer rent when they could live at home for free. |
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Apr 15, 2010 14:21:09 GMT -5
Great!
Now can you put the West Coast on the left & the East Coast on the right....I'm still confused!
|
|
|
|
Post by benjamin on Apr 15, 2010 15:54:56 GMT -5
Great! Now can you put the West Coast on the left & the East Coast on the right....I'm still confused! Try a top down approach. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 15, 2010 22:09:29 GMT -5
I brought up choice of coach because you guys were saying that was a big reason why AC shouldn't force athletes to move. The problem is that your entire argument is based on the premise that the NTC (wherever it is) would not be a better situation. This speaks to a general mistrust of whatever authority AC might claim to have. I can't believe Oldster would slight an entire religion to make his point (ok, yes I can, new heights of condescension and ad hominem in this thread, wow) but Roman Catholic tradition aside, there is nothing wrong with submitting to an authority if you trust that authority. I think the big problem is that none of you trust that AC can set up an appropriate training group. That might be true, but make that argument then, don't say that it's because athletes simply CAN'T give up anything that's got them to the point where they've qualified for carding.
Someone make a list of carded athletes and see how many are not with their university or high school coach, or better still, see how many went looking for a coach specifically (and didn't come to the coach because of peripheral reasons, like NTC or moving for other reasons). I think I've said this before, Kevin Sullivan is the exception, not the rule.
I'll say this again, too: XC skiing. It worked, big time. What's the difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by maser on Apr 15, 2010 22:43:48 GMT -5
Journeyman
I'll say this again, too: XC skiing. It worked, big time. What's the difference.
Maybe a different approach to the long term results. More of a grassroots approach and good funding from the corporate sector.
StatOil kicked in 300k to get becky Scott out to promote the sport.
I had the pleasure of meeting Chandra Crawford she's a real treasure. The girls really give a lot back and i think that generates into good sponsorship from the corporate sector
I think maybe the mindset is that we do better at wintersports than summer so more funding. Lots of different considerations.
We have had some pretty good results with the women Renner, Crawford and Scott. The mens results were pretty good. I had an email from Devon Kershaw- I think both him and Alex Harvey will be good medal shots in 2014. The programs seem to be strong with good coaching and lots of support. I hung out this winter with some of the xc crew at races it has a different feel than running. It kind of reminds of the 70's/early80's running scene.
Really nice good folk to hang out with. Plus the venues are really super and the race organization even at the rec level was great.
Being an old school xc/track runner it has me thinking about maybe helping out with xc dryland training as opposed to track. A lot of the xc crew also do trail running in the summer. The 5 peaks trail run series is great here and has a really good crew running it. Their corporate sponsorship is really good as well. Lots of lessons to be learned but i don't know if the crew at AC would understand this. Seems to me nothing much has changed there as long as I've been around.
Cheers
KM
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 15, 2010 22:59:27 GMT -5
KM: a bunch of the ski folks do the mountain running championships usually. Babikov won it one year. They tend to turn down spots on the national (mountain running) team, though, probably because it is not funded, but also my impression was that they tend to race a lot less. The idea of an extra race seemed to put them off.
So if a big sponsor paid for a move, would the track runners go for it? Is that it? $18,000 or whatever it is, is not enough?
Just to add one more thing to my post above: I am fine with putting down a particular authority for being inadequate, but to say that "the rest of us" would limit authority to where it is "strictly necessary" shows an unawareness of the way the world generally works. Pretty much every relation is a power/authority relation. You love to bash AC for being incompetent, why not do it here instead of pretending we live in some libertarian utopia.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 16, 2010 0:20:49 GMT -5
The problem is that your entire argument is based on the premise that the NTC (wherever it is) would not be a better situation. This speaks to a general mistrust of whatever authority AC might claim to have... I think the big problem is that none of you trust that AC can set up an appropriate training group. That might be true, but make that argument then... With all due respect, the onus is on whoever argues for a massive, disruptive change to present evidence that it's worthwhile, not the other way around. If we can learn one thing from examining the training of champions around the world, it's that there are many, many different ways to the top that work for different people. Why should we assume that AC or anyone else is capable of anointing a small handful of people as the only acceptable routes to glory? This isn't a question of distrusting AC. I'd be equally skeptical if there was a national agency that dictated what ice cream flavour I was supposed to eat every night. Even if they created individualized guidance that chose my flavour based on a detailed analysis of my personality, recent diet, and ice cream eating goals, I'd still be left wondering why they're trying to control something when there's no evidence that they're able to pick a flavour better than I am. I'm no libertarian, but authority still has to answer "why?" before it's justified. "I'll say this again, too: XC skiing. It worked, big time. What's the difference?" Not to be a contrarian, but why are we so enamoured of XC skiing? How many medals did it win at our most successful Winter Olympics ever? Competing against how many other countries? Seems to me track is doing better than skiing, even if Beckie Scott's glory days are slightly more recent than Donovan Bailey's. |
|
|
|
Post by powerboy on Apr 16, 2010 9:34:21 GMT -5
Lots of good points. I want to briefly return to a more fundamental issue that we have mostly skipped by-that the new standards are too high to really have any effect. Lets look at 5k. 13:22 is more than competitive, and other than the big golden type meets, will get an athlete into most meets with a chance for some prize money, and certainly some road race money, plus some level of sponsorship. Therefore, our hypothetical Canadian at 13:22 is not desperate for his 18k and has achieved much without it, and should be able to progress further if his ability allows.
On the other hand, it seems to me that 21-23 yr olds who come down from 14:10-13:40 on their own would be a more logical investment. The onus to produce would have to be higher, but it seems to me to give a young runner a chance to move from 13:40 to 13:20 would broaden the pool, and instead of having 1-2 guys there we might have 5-6 at 13:20, and from that pool there is a better chance that someone may emerge to challenge 13:00.
Finally, at the top end there is an absurdity to waste our limited resources on someone who is already earning solid money. Did it not strike many as ridiculous to know that our gold medal 100m sprinters were receiving A card money in addition to their appearance fees, advertising fees etc? Their money should have been moved down to the next 2-3 10.3 sprinters to see whether that would get them over the next hump.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldneck on Apr 16, 2010 9:55:58 GMT -5
Therefore, our hypothetical Canadian at 13:22 is not desperate for his 18k and has achieved much without it, and should be able to progress further if his ability allows. How much $ do you think a guy running, say, 13:21.53 makes above carding here in Canada? |
|
|
|
Post by Smithwicks on Apr 16, 2010 10:48:59 GMT -5
How much $ do you think a guy running, say, 13:21.53 makes above carding here in Canada? 13:21:52 is the magic number to endless funds for hookers and blow. Should've leaned more at the line. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 16, 2010 11:10:53 GMT -5
I brought up choice of coach because you guys were saying that was a big reason why AC shouldn't force athletes to move. The problem is that your entire argument is based on the premise that the NTC (wherever it is) would not be a better situation. This speaks to a general mistrust of whatever authority AC might claim to have. I can't believe Oldster would slight an entire religion to make his point (ok, yes I can, new heights of condescension and ad hominem in this thread, wow) but Roman Catholic tradition aside, there is nothing wrong with submitting to an authority if you trust that authority. I think the big problem is that none of you trust that AC can set up an appropriate training group. That might be true, but make that argument then, don't say that it's because athletes simply CAN'T give up anything that's got them to the point where they've qualified for carding. Someone make a list of carded athletes and see how many are not with their university or high school coach, or better still, see how many went looking for a coach specifically (and didn't come to the coach because of peripheral reasons, like NTC or moving for other reasons). I think I've said this before, Kevin Sullivan is the exception, not the rule. I'll say this again, too: XC skiing. It worked, big time. What's the difference? Journeyman, since hutch has adeptly handled the more relevant aspects of this objection (you don't have to be a "liberal utopian" to require that authority be exercised only when strictly necessary; being a supporter of liberal democracy will do), I will confine myself to your overreaction to my comments against the "Catholic tradition", which has unquestionably been a major font of anti-enlightenment, anti-democratic discourse and practice in the western tradition since medieval times. This is a no-brainer, and I'm certainly not the first to suggest it. The institution is the very soul and essence of unquestioned authority. Besides, if you're generally O.K. with the unchecked, paternalistic exercise of authority, why would you consider this a slight in the first place? Besides (and dare I say it at this time?) there are far worse things I could say about this institution (much of which would be more than peripherally related to the aforementioned fetish for authority). (And my whole distaff ancestral side is Irish Catholic from top to bottom; so, anything I say on this hits very close to my own home. The best critiques of the Catholic tradition come from Catholics themselves.) |
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Apr 16, 2010 11:53:42 GMT -5
Therefore, our hypothetical Canadian at 13:22 is not desperate for his 18k and has achieved much without it, and should be able to progress further if his ability allows. How much $ do you think a guy running, say, 13:21.53 makes above carding here in Canada? Thank you for that  Comments like that by powerboy & schester before about how easily it is to live offcarding & how much $ & sponsorship are available at that level are what keep the people who really know & understand (and are or have lived the experience) from even entering the debate. Obviously the majority of people even with our defined distance event group have no clue what they're talking about in this regard! As for the carding standards, here is my recollection of who was carded in the mid-late '80's 800 Simon Hoogewerf - 1:45 Bruce Roberts - 1:46 1500 Dave Campbell -3:38 Doug Consiglio - 3:35 Dave Reid? - 3:38 5000/10000 Paul Williams - 13:22/27:50 Carey Nelson -13:29/28:04 Paul McCloy-13:27/27:55 marathon Dave Edge - 2:11 Art Boileau - 2:11(but I think he may not have got carding because he lived outside Canada) Peter Butler - 2:11(not sure about that) Steeple Graeme Fell -8:12/13:30 Greg Duhaime-8:19/13:30 800 Brit McRoberts - 2:00 Ranza Clark - 2:01 1500 Lynn Williams -4:00 Leah Pells - 4:03 Debbie Bowker -4:05 Angela Chalmers- 4:01 5000/10000 Lynn-15:00 Sue Lee - 15:17/31:50 Carol Roulliard - 32:06 Nanacy Tinari -32:10 marathon Sylvia Reugger -2:28 Anne Marie Malone - 2:33 I probably botched that list completely but the point is, in my opinion at least, standards of 13:2/27:45/2:12 & 2:00/4:05/32:00 required to receive government funding are not out of line. |
|
