|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 16, 2010 12:32:30 GMT -5
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. Ah, but Hutch, the national ice cream agency you describe is not paying you out of the public purse to eat ice cream. That's the reason why they have some authority. Whether they are effective in using it is another question and I can certainly see many arguments on either side of that debate. The government in fact already tells you what kind of milk you can drink (not raw) what kind of eggs you can buy (local), how fast you can drive on the highway...the list goes on. If the government can make choices for you in that respect, why is it wrong for an expert body (we're not talking about Stephen Harper dictating Sport Policy here, it's track coaches who've come up with this stuff) to make decisions about what is the best way to grow our sport? As for proving that it could work, I can only offer XC skiing as an example, and to refute your point about the most recent Olympics, I dare say that the results of the men's distance team there were likely the best of all the events. You're thinking like the bureaucrats who only view medals as success. If we're talking about athletes achieve their best performance relative to the rest of the world, then that ski team outperformed everyone, even Sid and the hockey team, I'd say. My strong reaction is just to this idea that things shouldn't change. It seems to me that the prevailing sentiment is that Canadian distance running could be doing better. I don't think that we are in danger of blowing up something that is so great a success, that it is not worth it to try something new. I guess it is just a matter of opinion, and certainly every individual athlete decides what they want to do to achieve their goals. I just think it is ok to attach the carrot of funding and support to a specific training location. Others think this is a travesty of justice. I might be wrong, but I don't think it is that bad. Maybe the question should be modified to "how much money would it take to get an athlete to move?" Certainly, everyone has his or her price? Oldster you've called me out of touch, you attributed my opinion (wrongly) to various negative personal characteristics that I must have, you generalized about an entire religion (whether it is your own or not doesn't matter to me really), and you've gone back on your own views about the importance of coaching. I'll just say that I submit to your authority on this issue then, and leave it at that. If you are in Montreal this weekend maybe we should talk face to face--it will be easier for me not to overreact (and I grant that I may very well be overreacting). |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 16, 2010 14:06:21 GMT -5
1. What you said about athletes not choosing their coaches WAS out of touch with the sport at the highest levels.
2. The "fetish for authority" thing was a last resort attempt to make sense of your position.
3. The thing about the church was a response to your suggestion the critique of "paternalism" was some kind of academic fad instead of the basis of a whole social and political tradition (which has had some notable and powerful opponents.)
4. I didn't go back on my position about coaching. I even repeated it. And, to repeat, I said that, no matter how much you or I think it might be worth, it won't work to dictate to ATHLETES what they OUGHT to think it is worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by powerboy on Apr 16, 2010 15:38:20 GMT -5
I didn't mean to suggest that anyone at 13:21 was living the high life! I am simply suggesting that from a developmental perspective, 13:22 may be too high a standard to hit and that more development would take place if we funded young guys at 13:40.
To me, the D cards should be true development and could have quite flexible standards. Conversely I could be quite the hardass and say that someone running 13:21 for 5 years is no longer developing and therefore could be cut off.
It requires a certain vision and a philosophy that we never seem to get right.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 16, 2010 16:26:50 GMT -5
Ah, but Hutch, the national ice cream agency you describe is not paying you out of the public purse to eat ice cream. That's the reason why they have some authority. Whether they are effective in using it is another question and I can certainly see many arguments on either side of that debate. The government in fact already tells you what kind of milk you can drink (not raw) what kind of eggs you can buy (local), how fast you can drive on the highway...the list goes on. John, you're still missing my basic point. Of course the government HAS the authority to, metaphorically, tell its troops to eat shit in exchange for carding money. The question, which you admit is unanswered, is whether doing so would be EFFECTIVE -- answering the question "why?" There are excellent rationales for pasteurizing milk and putting speed limits on highways. Certainly not everyone agrees with them, but there's enough evidence that it's not simply a whim. To reiterate, this isn't an argument about what sport leaders are ALLOWED to do, it's about what they SHOULD do. And having a hunch about a nifty idea that just might work is not a basis for a national sport policy. Your evidence: "As for proving that it could work, I can only offer XC skiing as an example, and to refute your point about the most recent Olympics, I dare say that the results of the men's distance team there were likely the best of all the events." You may dare to say it, but that doesn't make it remotely convincing. I understand and am very impressed by what they accomplished in Vancouver, but I'm not convinced that our distance runners wouldn't fare just as well in a meet against Northern Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 16, 2010 16:41:38 GMT -5
I didn't mean to suggest that anyone at 13:21 was living the high life! Well, you did say "our hypothetical Canadian at 13:22 is not desperate for his 18k." I'm guessing here, but I'd be surprised if Canadians running in the mid-13:20s were making ANY net profit on running outside of carding and other jobs, once you subtract travel expenses and so on, unless they were spending a lot of time on the roads. As for the general point about supporting developing athletes rather than established second-tier athletes -- as far as I can tell, that's one of the main purposes of these new standards. That's why, unlike in the olden days, there are now separate (increasingly hard) standards for every age from 18 to 28 and four tiers of standards -- they're making it easier for an up-and-comer to get carded than for someone who's been at a world-class-but-not-top-8 level for several years. Of course, the standards overall are quite hard, especially in events they've chosen not to focus on. I assume that's why the 5000m D standard for a 21-year-old is 13:33, while the equivalent 1500 standard is just 3:45. I definitely don't agree with stacking the deck in favour of or against certain events. |
|
|
|
Post by blahblahblah on Apr 16, 2010 17:00:57 GMT -5
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. Back in the 80s, if you didn't run those times, you could still hope to make the World XC team, which was funded by the Government. Now, even if a team is allowed to attend, the athletes are expected to pick up the bill of several thousand $ to make the trip. The costs were prohibitive for some athletes in the past, and removing carding money certainly isn't going to improve things. Of course, it's a given that AC doesn't give a s*** about distance running anymore.... |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 16, 2010 17:54:53 GMT -5
Ah, but Hutch, the national ice cream agency you describe is not paying you out of the public purse to eat ice cream. That's the reason why they have some authority. Whether they are effective in using it is another question and I can certainly see many arguments on either side of that debate. The government in fact already tells you what kind of milk you can drink (not raw) what kind of eggs you can buy (local), how fast you can drive on the highway...the list goes on. John, you're still missing my basic point. Of course the government HAS the authority to, metaphorically, tell its troops to eat shit in exchange for carding money. The question, which you admit is unanswered, is whether doing so would be EFFECTIVE -- answering the question "why?" There are excellent rationales for pasteurizing milk and putting speed limits on highways. Certainly not everyone agrees with them, but there's enough evidence that it's not simply a whim. To reiterate, this isn't an argument about what sport leaders are ALLOWED to do, it's about what they SHOULD do. And having a hunch about a nifty idea that just might work is not a basis for a national sport policy. Your evidence: "As for proving that it could work, I can only offer XC skiing as an example, and to refute your point about the most recent Olympics, I dare say that the results of the men's distance team there were likely the best of all the events." You may dare to say it, but that doesn't make it remotely convincing. I understand and am very impressed by what they accomplished in Vancouver, but I'm not convinced that our distance runners wouldn't fare just as well in a meet against Northern Europe. This ought to sound familiar, Journeyman-- like, from page two of this thread, when I said in my first post that the power of AC to make rules based on their power to withhold carding (i.e. that athletes can "take it or leave it") is not in itself an argument for using that power. I have tried to offer several reasons why I think it should not use its power in this way (strictly from the point of view realizing it's own stated goals), which you are free to try and refute (you haven't, except to say that you think, based on your experience, that athletes shouldn't take their personal choice of coaches and training locales so seriously.) Other than offering up the model of a team that recently won no Olympic medals on its home course, and in a sport that is more or less a G-8 affair (think of how much better Canada would look in distance running if you took out all of African, South America, most of Southern Europe and 95% of Asia), you have offered no argument whatsoever for why compelling athletes (real, Canadian athletes, operating in the concrete present) to attend a mandatory NTC would work better than the current approach. (Although you did manage to smear the character of elite distance runners in general in the course of your non-argument). This is why I was justified in the first place in suggesting that you perhaps just like the idea of people getting bossed around by authority. I mean, what else have you offered? |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Apr 16, 2010 19:52:29 GMT -5
You may dare to say it, but that doesn't make it remotely convincing. I understand and am very impressed by what they accomplished in Vancouver, but I'm not convinced that our distance runners wouldn't fare just as well in a meet against Northern Europe. Very well said. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 17, 2010 16:44:29 GMT -5
You may dare to say it, but that doesn't make it remotely convincing. I understand and am very impressed by what they accomplished in Vancouver, but I'm not convinced that our distance runners wouldn't fare just as well in a meet against Northern Europe. Very well said. Yes, that is well said, ahutch... We don't seem to be quite as dominant when the whole damn World is involved, as compared to a few "select" Nations. Soccer is one of our most popular sports, participation-wise, and our Men's team includes a lot of very good athletes, yet is ranked 50th or 60th or 70th in the Big World. What part of this is not readily apparent to the OTP folks? |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 17, 2010 16:45:53 GMT -5
I still think the ski team is a good comparison. Look at where they came from. They didn't win medals, but how did they do in those events last time? In Turin we were 57th and 58th in the 50k mass start (considered the marathon of xc skiing). We were 5th, 11th, 32nd and 33rd in 2010. In Turin we were 26th, 39th, 57th and 62nd in the 30k pursuit. We were 5th, 8th, 9th in the 30k pursuit. I'd say that's a real significant improvement. So it doesn't matter whether they were racing against Kenyans or Brazilians or Norweigians.
In the other sports where we won medals, we won medals last time, or were already in the top ten. No other sport training group improved as much as those guys did for these Olympics.
I know that doesn't prove that the NTC program was the cause, but I think it is enough to at least consider it as a possibility. What about triathlon? Maybe that's a better example? Don't they have a big training group, too?
All I'm saying is that taking the athletes (real, concrete ones, like Oldster says) we have and putting them together in a positive, supportive training environment, and giving them money to do it, would be an improvement on having them be in separate (but still positive and supportive) training environments, and giving them money to do it.
When the Brooks Project came to Canada, where people not saying how great it would be, and how they'd be happy to move to be able to train in such a group? Or did I imagine that?
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 17, 2010 16:51:24 GMT -5
I do not think this is such an out-there idea that it warrants the sarcasm, low blows and general disingenuousness that Oldster is putting out there. Basically you are saying: I don't agree with you, therefore you are an idiot.
I did not smear anybody. I suggested that athletes suffer from status quo bias, and that it would not be a travesty to impose on them terms that would require further investment (note I'm not saying no investment has already been made) in their endeavours by moving to a national training centre.
I suggested that athletes should be aware that their chosen profession is a privilege: they get to run races for a living. I didn't say that all athletes don't know this, but just that they should consider it as part of the mix when deciding how to achieve their goals. It's a general statement.
I do know some specific top performers who are prima donnas. I did not mention their names, but I don't think it is out of touch to know that just because someone is a good athlete, that doesn't make them a good person. I'm not going after anyone in particular, I'm just saying it is equally silly for you to suggest that all athletes are good people as it would be for me to say they are all bad people (which I did not say). The whole "poor athletes" thing is old for me. You know what you are getting into.
It is certainly a fair comment that none of the athletes are on here complaining about this. Just the people who have axes to grind with authority or who like to discuss the theories of what the best ways to improve our sport--which is great when done civilly, which is not what Oldster is doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by lambert on Apr 17, 2010 20:55:37 GMT -5
I haven't been following this thread that closely, but I'd like to point out that XC skiing might not be a model program to follow.
I know quite a few people who were either on or very close to the national XC and biathlon teams, and from what I've seen, the national training centres are rife with politics and problems. Whole groups of people will refuse to train with the national team coach and I know a number of people who were forced to race when they were ill and then were kicked off the team for bad performances (for example, one girl quit the national team and then ended up becoming a world champion in cycling - skiing's loss). Also, being forced to be at the NTC for 75% of the time (or whatever it is) means that it is impossible to go to school other than through correspondence. I hear about people who finish with the sport at 30 and don't know how to live in the real world, having spend the last 15 years living in Canmore being supported by the national team. I personally prefer the track system that gives more personal freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 17, 2010 21:21:25 GMT -5
I still think the ski team is a good comparison. Look at where they came from. Well, exactly. The National Training Centres for XC skiing were established in the early 1990s (http://www.cccski.com/main.asp?cmd=cat&ID=164&lan=0), and yet the teams have, in general, been terrible for almost that entire period. Now they're doing relatively well (thanks, in part, to a huge boost in funding related to Vancouver), so we should imitate the structure that produced mediocrity for almost two decades? Look, I know that the cause and effect of sporting success is complicated. And, as I've said several times on this thread, I'd be in favour of strengthening NTCs. But not at the expense of compelling athletes to conform, unless there are some minimally rational and compelling arguments in favour -- and unless I'm missing something, trying to emulate the XC ski team doesn't strike me as a strong one. "When the Brooks Project came to Canada, where people not saying how great it would be, and how they'd be happy to move to be able to train in such a group? Or did I imagine that?" An excellent example. For one thing, people were drawn to the program, not conscripted. At least a dozen people joined, moving across the country from Vancouver, Winnipeg, Timmins and elsewhere. On the other hand, most of the out-of-towners have since moved back home, suggesting that fantastic facilities, support, coaching and training partners aren't, on their own, the magical performance enhancers we might have hoped. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 17, 2010 21:53:43 GMT -5
You sound as though you're the only one whose suggesting that athletes should train in groups. We all know that they already do, and that this is good for them. This issue from the start is whether they should be compelled to enter groups as a condition of receiving national funding. I have said from the beginning that his would be counterproductive, and I have said why (basically, that it makes life difficult for athletes in ways that they would be highly unlikely to accept; and, that if they refused to accept them, AC would be left with no athletes to administer). My position is that, all other thing being equal, athletes, especially highly accomplished ones, probably know best what they need, and will tend to proceed accordingly. I never said athletes were saints (although they're just as likely to be saints as "prima donnas"), just that they are more likely to know what's good for them personally than you or AC, since we're talking about THEIR careers and THEIR lives. You, on the other hand, made a general statement, in support of your position, that elite distance runners were inclined to be prima donnas and therefore need to be told what's best for them by "experts". (This is, BTW, far more ignorant and insulting than anything that's been directed at you, not least because I actually supported my accusations with reference to things you had said.)
And how can you go blithely on suggesting that AC may be able to fix Canadian distance running through flexing its funding muscle while ignoring the clear evidence that they are cutting this whole event range loose in terms of relative levels of support for developing athletes? You have not uttered one word in acknowledgment of this bald fact.
And, for chrissakes, can everyone stop being so uptight and over-sensitive!? This is a message board. What I see here are usernames, personas, and the statements that accompany them, not actual people and their "feelings". I don't believe in being abusive, slanderous, or gratuitously rude; but, if someone posts something I think is ill-considered, ill-informed, illogical, tendentious, or what have you, then I will say so, and I will explain my reasoning. And I fully expect the same from others if I am guilty of the same. What annoys me more than anything else is when I see people who have clearly and decisively lost an argument on all counts falling back on the "incivility" thing. You think I'm uncivil? How about getting over it and providing a decent, substantive argument? That's what will help things along, not protesting over hurt feelings.
P.S. Why the umbrage? Because I am a former elite athlete and close friend to many more. I lack patience for someone without the least clue what life looks like from that perspective insinuating that they might know how to "fix" what's wrong with the system, and blaming athletes to boot. (Which is basically ALL journeyman has done in this thread). In my experience, our athletes themselves (saints or prima donnas) are not the issue. Canadian elites train just as hard and intelligently as elites anywhere. There are just not enough of them. There is no "solution" to restoring performance levels in this sport that is not going to start with learning from what our best athletes are already doing, not punishing them for not doing it better. And, if our athletes ARE getting it so wrong, it shouldn't be hard for someone-- say, journeyman-- to get a group of athletes together and show us all how it's really done! Wouldn't this be a better solution than trying to boss existing elites around?
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 18, 2010 7:42:00 GMT -5
Steve, is it fair for me to assume then that it won't bother you if my pq persona calls your oldster persona an asshole?
Some people take umbrage with your online bullying because many recognize this is a real social situation, and the screennames/personas all DO have recognizable people behind them withj real reputations, and yes even feelings.
Many on here therefore conform to normal rules of social interaction, rather than treating the place as an on line fantasy game where you call other anonymous players asshole, liar etc, or ask them if they're off their meds and the like.
If you'd like, I'm sure many would be happy to respond in kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 18, 2010 7:42:54 GMT -5
Oldster, the problem I have is that you basically assume that because I've said one thing, that means I think a whole bunch of other things and that I am a whole bunch of other things, not necessarily related to that first thing. You're a bully, at least as far as your conduct on this board goes. It's a just message board, as you say. If you think I'm wrong, you can say it nicely, but you never do. You attack the character of the person you think is wrong. I'm not falling back on incivility because I think I've lost an argument. I'm trying to make an argument, but you keep saying that I'm not allowed to make it because I'm wrong. I'm allowed to be wrong--that doesn't make me a bad person.
I never said athletes were the problem. What we're talking about is the best way to use the good work athletes are doing to the collective advantage. That is AC's job. It's pretty simple: I think that AC is justified in compelling athletes to move to a NTC because their mandate is to look at the big picture. Individual athletes look at the individual picture: that's not damning or insulting, that's just the way it is. They should look at the individual picture, but when they are brought into the collective, they should consider where they fit in that collective. It seems like the argument you are making is that AC shouldn't compel athletes to move because it won't work because it would make life difficult for the athletes. But it could work, if the athletes took the leap. I don't think the burden is necessarily on the person who would change it. It seems clear that what we are doing now is not working as well as we would like. Everyone here is always calling for change. Change is made, people don't like the change, they keep complaining. That's fine, that's what message boards are for. But it's not necessary to attack my character to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Apr 18, 2010 10:28:04 GMT -5
As much as I dislike Oldster's tone at times, this seems like a draw to me. Journeyman, you started all this with your stance about NTC's. I happen to agree with oldster's position in that NTC's, while in theory might be a good idea, all too often have practical problems - and that is the reality! The individual athlete is the focus here, otherwise it is just a collection of individuals - you (J-man) take on too much of a "group" is everything mindset (very prevalent up here it appears).
As to NTC's - Look at the "group" of female 800m runners that are supposed to be in Victoria, it fell apart (I won't go into why) and a group has instead developed around SFU and Valley Royals - as it should, but that doesn't mean that they should be an NTC. I have nothing against University and club affiliations (Guelph/SR), but they shouldn't be NTC's either - too much of a recruiting tool. IMO either ALL Universities have this designation (so equal recruiting opportunities, apart from academic) or none of them, and since Universities are paying salaries it is too difficult to separate without creating conflicts-of-interest. This is even more important when provincial carding (Ontario anyway) convinces athletes to stay up here as well.
As an example of development - look at the Brits in the '80's (Moorecroft,Ovett,Coe, Cram, Elliott , et al) . ALL had different coaches (No NTC group) and different training situations and programs, but all were either Olympic medalists and/or WR-holders. It was the depth of competition that compelled them to run faster (not a training group) - DM moved to 5000m as he could no longer make the UK team at 1500m (after winning CG in 1978) as a 3.49 miler!. Guys like Graham Williamson (3.36 as a junior) had difficulty making any teams. I could never see Coe and Ovett training together, which is the idea behind an event NTC - heck I couldn't see Sully and Hood training together on a regular basis (and if you don't understand why, then ...)
Heck, Sully hasn't improved in 10 years (2000), yet he still makes our teams (when healthy) as there aren't enough guys running under 3.36 to knock him out of the team. Maybe he might have taken the 5000m more seriously if greater depth had forced him to move up. It hasn't, and since the 1500m/mile is a marquee event (like the 100m and Marathon), why should he move up? Probably more money in the 1500m.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 18, 2010 10:28:53 GMT -5
Two things here:
1. If you have an argument beyond "change is needed" (an banality about which we can all agree), then why don't you summarize it, with specific reference to all the detailed, specific, objections (mine and others) that have been raised against it? When/if you attempt this, you will see how incredibly thin and easily dispensed with it is. If there is a real-world argument against compelling the something like 10-20 male and female athletes who are nationally cared athletes (and, really, that's all we're talking about here) into some non-existent NTC, then you have not even begun to make it. You've done what so many others on forums like so often do, which is offer up a poorly thought out or ill-informed position, dumb misunderstanding, or shrill over-reaction, then proceed to repeat it in different variations (often with subtle evasions of the point) over and over against carefully constructed refutations, then proceed to cry "personal foul", or protest that "it's just my opinion", when someone loses his/her patience and points out in detail how stupid they're being. I don't object to anyone's right to do this, but I don't think they should expect to do it without encountering some annoyance.
2. My "attacks on your character" consist of the following: 1. Saying that, in the absence of other supports for you position besides "AC knows best", you perhaps have a simple "fetish for authority" (something which you admitted, although half-jokingly, could in fact be true, and yet now count as a grave slight); and that 2. Calling you "out of touch" for suggesting that athletes in position to be carded don't think hard about their choice of coaching. Wow, when I look at it, this really is pretty low and hurtful stuff, and completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. I can see how you might be deeply offended.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 18, 2010 10:53:07 GMT -5
P.S. Bystander, well put. (Although complaints about "tone" coming from you are pretty rich, actually.) Anyone with any knowledge or experience who's bothered to think about and study this question for even a minute will start to see the shortcomings of a mandatory NTC, especially in a place with as few top athletes as Canada.
And one other thing about the x-country skiing comparison: To the extent that this has worked it is largely because there is no other comparable development system for this sport in North America. In distance running, on the other hand, there is the NCAA, the CIS, and a proliferation of high-level private U.S. training groups for post-collegians, with which our NCAA-based athletes are liable to develop links in the course of their years there. This makes it highly unlikely that AC is ever going to be able to come up with an NTC system that can compete successfully with the range of specifically tailored alternatives available to individual North American distance runners (and track and field athletes in general). To insist against this concrete reality that our athletes repatriate and report to an NTC, no matter how much the people who set it up believe in it, is bound to create more problems than it is worth. It would likely take a massive, Aussie-style, infusion of funds into the sport (something that will NEVER happen in this country) to give such a plan even half a chance at success. And to rail about how it "COULD work if only athletes chose to support it" is completely facile in the absence of any real understanding of WHY they would be unlikely to support it (hint: it's got nothing to do with being "prima donnas"). (THIS is what chafes so much about journeyman's position.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 18, 2010 17:53:41 GMT -5
"It would likely take a massive, Aussie-style, infusion of funds into the sport (something that will NEVER happen in this country) to give such a plan even half a chance at success."
This is something I was going to mention earlier. The Australian Institute of Sport has absolutely mind-blowing facilities and support -- great living facilities, athlete-centred food, a sports medicine facility with over 100 of the most cutting-edge practitioners in the world on call, the best sports facilities. Not suprisingly, most of Australia's top swimmers are based here, taking advantage of the coaching and the pool with underwater windows, tracking cameras, instant biomechanical analysis and so on.
But almost none of the country's top distance runners are based at the AIS. This is either because
(a) they're too stupid or unambitious to appreciate the incredible benefits they'd get from centralizing in one super-training-group, and need the benevolent hand of Authority to force them to take advantage of it; or
(b) distance running is primarily driven by factors that are different from those in more technical sports like swimming and, dare I say, XC skiing, so the benefits of a training centre are outweighed by other, more personal factors.
"It's pretty simple: I think that AC is justified in compelling athletes to move to a NTC because their mandate is to look at the big picture."
This is the same old argument, restated for the umpteenth time -- that AC should compel athletes to move because they have the power to compel athletes to move. What we're looking for is a different ending to the sentence: "AC is justified in compelling athletes to move because the following benefits will accrue that wouldn't otherwise be available, as demonstrated by the following evidence..."
|
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Apr 18, 2010 21:14:25 GMT -5
Hutch, I understand your point, but at the same time I am not sure it is stands up to a more thorough inspection:
You state that the AUS swimmers take full advantage of the awesome AIS centers. The AUS swimmers kick ass.
You state that the AUS distance runners do not take advantage of the awesome AIS centers. I do not think that the AUS distance runners kick ass (yes, even in the relativistic world that accounts for event depth, I do not think that the runners are even in the same league as the swimmers).
MM
|
|
|
|
Post by maser on Apr 18, 2010 21:32:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 18, 2010 21:46:17 GMT -5
Hutch, I understand your point, but at the same time I am not sure it is stands up to a more thorough inspection: You state that the AUS swimmers take full advantage of the awesome AIS centers. The AUS swimmers kick ass. You state that the AUS distance runners do not take advantage of the awesome AIS centers. I do not think that the AUS distance runners kick ass (yes, even in the relativistic world that accounts for event depth, I do not think that the runners are even in the same league as the swimmers). MM Matt, first of all, I would quarrel strongly with the notion that there is even the remotest comparison between swimming and distance running, or track and field and general, when it comes to competitive depth. In fact, I'd put it on a par with X-C skiing. It's hugely expensive and highly dependent on technical expertise. Second, you're assuming that Aussie distance runners would benefit to the same degree as Aussie swimmers from congregating at an NTC, completely ignoring Hutch's point about the probable importance of technical differences between the two sports. Third, I'm sure part of what makes the Aussie centre work for swimmers is that they actually want to be there, and believe it is best for them. Finally, in general, I don't think it's ever wise to assume that, on average, people-- particularly very determined and accomplished ones-- don't know what's best for them. Aussie runners already train in groups, I'm sure. So, why would moving to a different, bigger group, with a different coach, in a place that may be far from the other things that are important to them, necessarily be an improvement (is what I imagine they would be thinking)? |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 19, 2010 0:31:35 GMT -5
You state that the AUS swimmers take full advantage of the awesome AIS centers. The AUS swimmers kick ass. You state that the AUS distance runners do not take advantage of the awesome AIS centers. I do not think that the AUS distance runners kick ass (yes, even in the relativistic world that accounts for event depth, I do not think that the runners are even in the same league as the swimmers). Come on, Matt -- that's just rhetorical sniping unless you really think there's a causal relationship between Aussie distance runners choosing not to base themselves at the AIS and their failure to win multiple Olympic and WC distance medals. If anything, it simply illustrates the difference between sports where you can buy success and sports where you can't. It's not that none of the runners have tried the AIS -- they have. But most of them have decided that they can get essentially the same benefits training with Bideau's group outside Melbourne, or with the extremely impressive group that trains down the road from me here in Sydney. Great coaching, training partners and medical support are a big help no matter what sport we're talking about. But in distance running, there's no equivalent to the $17 million high-tech pool at the AIS that makes centralization worthwhile for the swimmers. |
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Apr 19, 2010 7:47:36 GMT -5
Hutch-- I was actually only trying to rile you up!
Mission accomplished!
MM
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 19, 2010 10:45:36 GMT -5
As much as I dislike Oldster's tone at times, this seems like a draw to me. Actually I think I'm losing in terms of the actual argument. That's fine by me, I'm happy to be told I'm wrong, just not in the way Oldster has done it. Keep in mind the residence requirement is only for development cards anyway. So the whole discussion is theoretical at the level of the top performers. Maser: I do love to talk about theories of training and what might work and what might not. Sorry to have gotten side-tracked by the other issue. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 19, 2010 11:34:20 GMT -5
The residence requirement is only mandatory for development cards BUT, if you look at the supplementary document released April 16th (http://www.athletics.ca/admin/..%5Cfiles%5C%5CNationalTeamPrograms%5CAthleteServices%5CCarding%5C2010%20SUPPLEMENTARY%20INFORMATION%20TO%20CARDING%20CRITERIA%20-EN.PDF) you will see that being in a NTC will yield you more points than any other training environment (domestic or international) that you choose to be in. As much as I dislike Oldster's tone at times, this seems like a draw to me. Actually I think I'm losing in terms of the actual argument. That's fine by me, I'm happy to be told I'm wrong, just not in the way Oldster has done it. Keep in mind the residence requirement is only for development cards anyway. So the whole discussion is theoretical at the level of the top performers. Maser: I do love to talk about theories of training and what might work and what might not. Sorry to have gotten side-tracked by the other issue. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 19, 2010 12:50:07 GMT -5
As much as I dislike Oldster's tone at times, this seems like a draw to me. Actually I think I'm losing in terms of the actual argument. That's fine by me, I'm happy to be told I'm wrong, just not in the way Oldster has done it. Keep in mind the residence requirement is only for development cards anyway. So the whole discussion is theoretical at the level of the top performers. Maser: I do love to talk about theories of training and what might work and what might not. Sorry to have gotten side-tracked by the other issue. The issue is not whether you mind being told you're wrong; it's that you take so long to register it. You didn't do any better addressing hutch's points than you did mine, and he was very gentlemanly with you. I'll admit that I was importing some of my impatience with your position from other discussions. For whatever reason (again, there is room for speculation), you seem to want to set yourself up as a defender of a top-down approach to this sport, as evidenced by: your support for enforcing strict participation rules on school-based athletes; your defense of AC's rules changes around WXC participation (which, BTW, have done exactly what critics predicted they would-- kill the program-- such as it was-- at the senior level and make it look like it was the athletes' fault); and now this incredibly weak and ill-informed case for mandatory NTC participation (which, recall, WE emphasized was completely hypothetical, since AC is not even prepared to fund an NTC for events over 1500m!). In each of these three cases your arguments have been so weak, ill-informed and idiosyncratic (yet no less determined for it) that I have been inclined to wonder what's actually driving them--because it certainly can't be any real ground-level familiarity with the sport itself. There is no example anywhere of a successful mandatory NTC approach in this sport. Even history's greatest example of a top-down approach-- the old Stalinist, "nation-building" system in the former east bloc-- had, quite predictably, far more success in sports where technical training was of key importance (e.g. swimming, gymnastics, sprints, jumps and throws) than it did in sports like distance running, where athletes from non-centralized (i.e. club-based) systems like Britain, New Zealand, the U.S., and later Kenya, continued to dominate. Even the free and systematic use of PEDs could not put Russian or East German distance athletes to the top of the sport in any great numbers. Thus, I don't think my two personal remarks-- that you are out of touch with the sport, and that you perhaps have a fetish for using power and authority to solves problems-- are all that unwarranted, and they are certainly not gratuitous. (Not to defend all of the conduct on there, but you would have been called much worse, and in more colourful language, if you tried this on Letsrun. Besides, I think knowing that you might be called out of touch, an idiot, or what-have-you, if you don't make a good case, or if you make a weak case a little too confidently, is not necessarily a bad thing at all. It helps keep people sharp, or, if not, at least a little more circumspect. And recall, very few of us really know each other anyway, so most of this is directed at the things people SAY, not what they may BE. Smart people say dumb things all the time, especially if they speak too soon, are not really listening, or are being competitive instead of trying to learn. It tends to be a guy-thing, BTW.) |
|
|
|
Post by powerboy on Apr 19, 2010 12:54:10 GMT -5
The debate seems to be dying out, but dying a natural death. Journeyman, I agree that you are losing but it was a good effort. As Hutch says, the Aussie distance runners are proving that they dont need to be centralized, and in case you havent looked closely, they have had a significant upturn the past couple of years,in particular at 1500.
An interesting question is what if anything have they done differently the past couple of years, because suddenly they have 3-5 guys at 3:35 and under, with Gregson having huge potential.
It may well be that it is good old fashioned competition that has pushed them.
No matter what we do, we need a few more bodies in each event to push the front runners.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 19, 2010 13:06:52 GMT -5
No matter what we do, we need a few more bodies in each event to push the front runners. How do we create incentives that encourage this to happen, and if it happens, to then sustain it? I'm not sure how big a role individual cards play in this bigger question, although I admit I have no direct experience with carding, so my musings are simply those of an interested taxpayer/citizen, not someone personally affected by decisions around these cards. |
|
