|
|
Post by champion on Apr 19, 2010 15:11:22 GMT -5
Has anyone talked to the coaches/administrators at AC that made the decision not to fund distance running and found out the reasons? I, for one, would love to hear the reasons and why they don't think there is a solution. I'd also be willing to help if it is about marketing, resources, funding etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 19, 2010 15:14:30 GMT -5
I think you will find carding plays a huge role in the competitive lives of many of our athletes. For many, the carding decisions will basically decide the level of commitment each will have to the sport from a training and competition perspective. The big flaw with carding is that it is presented as an "investment" in athletes, yet this investment is for a single competitive year. In my opinion, this is hardly an investment and seems more of a gamble. It hardly allows for any real long-term planning since their is no guarantee at the end of the year that you will be able to commit to the same level of training that you were in the year just ended. If OTP really wants to make an investment, they should start investing in athletes on a longer term. I think you could get more bang for your buck if you had a quadrennial approach to carding. Basically if you qualify for carding in any year between the end of 2012 and 2015, then you receive that carding through the end of the Olympic Games in 2016. Obviously, there would have to be come checks and balances in place to negate any athlete that tries to milk the system out of a multi-year card by not training/competing. Now we have an investment, and one that likely could allow AC or OTP to perhaps put more of an emphasis on athletes going to an NTC. Athletes would see a true commitment from our NSO and in turn may be less wary of committing to an NSO run NTC. It would also give our university age athletes a greater incentive to stay in Canada as their tuition support that comes with carding would then carry over on a multi-year term as well. As it is right now though, a one year commitment from AC/OTP would hardly be enough to make me uproot and move across the country to take a chance in a coaching system that may very well not work for me. Oldster hit it right on the head when talking about how most athletes who are invested in the sport are making well thought out and well educated decisions on their coaching/training/living situations. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 19, 2010 17:41:59 GMT -5
Very well thought out, and articulated, Kevin.
I could not agree with you more...
|
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Apr 19, 2010 21:13:37 GMT -5
Oldster, Re: your post below. I stated that even given the relative differences in competitiveness between swimming and running-- the AUS swimmers are far more successful. I am not sure how you can argue with that. It is not as if the Aussies would dominate a track meet made up of only countries that participate in the FINA World Champs. They certainly would not place as relatively well as their swimmers do.
Re: your second point-- I have made no assumptions. I was simply raising the question of whether or not association with the AIS centre may be partly responsible for the success of swimmers, and lack of success of the runners. Your assumption or bias is that the effect is either negative or non-transeferable to our sport that is immutably different. I am no swimmer, but is it really as highly technical as you suggest?
Gymnastics, figure skating, aerial skiing, and even sports like rowing and skiing that rely on highly technical equipment are "highly technical". I am sure that there is alot of technical expertise required for developmet of new swimsuits and pools-- but the same can be said of spikes and tracks.
There is a reasonable amount of stroke-related technique, but from what I have gathered it is as much about the volume and time spent in the pool-- thus more similar to distance running than some of those really highly technical sports. I fail to see how swimming and running are so entirely different that they are beyond comparison. I would certainly place it among the sports which lends itself towards reasonable comparison to running (both individual, both aerobic).
I certainly do not have all the answers for how to best develop the sport in Canada (or AUS) for that matter. I think there is some merit in looking at other ways to create a nucleus of high performing athletes. Improving our NTCs and compelling athletes to train at them (perhaps with the long term quadrennial investment KRS speaks of as incentive) may be a reasonable strategy to explore. The groups certainly don't seem to be forming spontaneously as they once did, and you offer few solutions that are any more practical to our 'there are not enough runners out there training hard' problem.
Your libertarian point of view-- that individuals will make the choices that are best for them, and this will lead to a better result than any attempt at a centralized top down effort is curious. You seem to abhor any notion of top-down guidance or policy simply because of what it represents rather than what the substance of the proposal is.
Many of the great things we have achieved as a civilization have come through top-down planning an governance. Health care, universities, libraries, community centers, highways.... I would argue that there are at least as many models to look at with respect to the achievement of excellence through a top-down approach as there are of a grass-roots individualistic approach.
You seem to limit your scope to the specificities of the world of distance running and how other countries have achieved greatness. Perhaps looking to the past and trying to emulate others is not the best answer. Perhaps our increasingly sedentary, overweight youth, and dwindling numbers of sef-motivated aspiring elites are challenges to which the 'old solutions for success' are no longer applicable.
On occasion, one must look beyond the scope of his or her specialty and examine what other sports, or even other institutions altogether are doing. Perhaps bigger, better and even bossier NTCs are the answer? Perhaps not. Just because something has never been done does not mean that it will not be effective.
I apologize for perhaps instigating what is sure to become a back-alley brawl, but your persistent, aggressive and relatively closed-minded stance is somewhat unsettling. For an open-minded academic, you are being a little too dogged in your immediate dismissal of the ideas of others, and your tone is certainly a shade too harsh.
MM
[/quote]
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)? [/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Apr 19, 2010 22:21:28 GMT -5
I think you will find carding plays a huge role in the competitive lives of many of our athletes. For many, the carding decisions will basically decide the level of commitment each will have to the sport from a training and competition perspective. The big flaw with carding is that it is presented as an "investment" in athletes, yet this investment is for a single competitive year. In my opinion, this is hardly an investment and seems more of a gamble. It hardly allows for any real long-term planning since their is no guarantee at the end of the year that you will be able to commit to the same level of training that you were in the year just ended. If OTP really wants to make an investment, they should start investing in athletes on a longer term. I think you could get more bang for your buck if you had a quadrennial approach to carding. Basically if you qualify for carding in any year between the end of 2012 and 2015, then you receive that carding through the end of the Olympic Games in 2016. Obviously, there would have to be come checks and balances in place to negate any athlete that tries to milk the system out of a multi-year card by not training/competing. Now we have an investment, and one that likely could allow AC or OTP to perhaps put more of an emphasis on athletes going to an NTC. Athletes would see a true commitment from our NSO and in turn may be less wary of committing to an NSO run NTC. It would also give our university age athletes a greater incentive to stay in Canada as their tuition support that comes with carding would then carry over on a multi-year term as well. As it is right now though, a one year commitment from AC/OTP would hardly be enough to make me uproot and move across the country to take a chance in a coaching system that may very well not work for me. Oldster hit it right on the head when talking about how most athletes who are invested in the sport are making well thought out and well educated decisions on their coaching/training/living situations. Great post Kevin. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 19, 2010 23:28:02 GMT -5
Oldster, Re: your post below. I stated that even given the relative differences in competitiveness between swimming and running-- the AUS swimmers are far more successful. I am not sure how you can argue with that. It is not as if the Aussies would dominate a track meet made up of only countries that participate in the FINA World Champs. They certainly would not place as relatively well as their swimmers do. Re: your second point-- I have made no assumptions. I was simply raising the question of whether or not association with the AIS centre may be partly responsible for the success of swimmers, and lack of success of the runners. Your assumption or bias is that the effect is either negative or non-transeferable to our sport that is immutably different. I am no swimmer, but is it really as highly technical as you suggest? Gymnastics, figure skating, aerial skiing, and even sports like rowing and skiing that rely on highly technical equipment are "highly technical". I am sure that there is alot of technical expertise required for developmet of new swimsuits and pools-- but the same can be said of spikes and tracks. There is a reasonable amount of stroke-related technique, but from what I have gathered it is as much about the volume and time spent in the pool-- thus more similar to distance running than some of those really highly technical sports. I fail to see how swimming and running are so entirely different that they are beyond comparison. I would certainly place it among the sports which lends itself towards reasonable comparison to running (both individual, both aerobic). I certainly do not have all the answers for how to best develop the sport in Canada (or AUS) for that matter. I think there is some merit in looking at other ways to create a nucleus of high performing athletes. Improving our NTCs and compelling athletes to train at them (perhaps with the long term quadrennial investment KRS speaks of as incentive) may be a reasonable strategy to explore. The groups certainly don't seem to be forming spontaneously as they once did, and you offer few solutions that are any more practical to our 'there are not enough runners out there training hard' problem. Your libertarian point of view-- that individuals will make the choices that are best for them, and this will lead to a better result than any attempt at a centralized top down effort is curious. You seem to abhor any notion of top-down guidance or policy simply because of what it represents rather than what the substance of the proposal is. Many of the great things we have achieved as a civilization have come through top-down planning an governance. Health care, universities, libraries, community centers, highways.... I would argue that there are at least as many models to look at with respect to the achievement of excellence through a top-down approach as there are of a grass-roots individualistic approach. You seem to limit your scope to the specificities of the world of distance running and how other countries have achieved greatness. Perhaps looking to the past and trying to emulate others is not the best answer. Perhaps our increasingly sedentary, overweight youth, and dwindling numbers of sef-motivated aspiring elites are challenges to which the 'old solutions for success' are no longer applicable. On occasion, one must look beyond the scope of his or her specialty and examine what other sports, or even other institutions altogether are doing. Perhaps bigger, better and even bossier NTCs are the answer? Perhaps not. Just because something has never been done does not mean that it will not be effective. I apologize for perhaps instigating what is sure to become a back-alley brawl, but your persistent, aggressive and relatively closed-minded stance is somewhat unsettling. For an open-minded academic, you are being a little too dogged in your immediate dismissal of the ideas of others, and your tone is certainly a shade too harsh. MM Mattmc, I'll set aside the question of my tone, except to say that, from my end, it just looks direct and pointed. And, I don't think I've been merely dismissing anyone's arguments; in fact, I have been at pains to point out precisely and in detail what I think is wrong with them. People have floated the idea of attaching stricter rules to carding requirements, including mandatory repatriation to hypothetical NTCs, in order to improve the level of performance in this sport; I have attempted to point out the many flaws in this suggestion. In this instance, the burden of providing solutions was not on me; it was on those arguing for this specific kind of change, and I have seen very little of substance in terms either of backing for this argument-- except vague references for the need for change, and a few references to successful experimentation in sports that are significantly different from distance running-- or of answering the many objections that Hutch and I have raised. As for your example of good things that were imposed "from above", I think you need to check your history a little more carefully. In almost every instance, and in every country, decent public services were the result of sustained and concerted popular agitation (i.e. "from below"), and often full scale mobilization, such that, when reforms were introduced, they addressed real felt needs. In the case of this sport in particular, I repeat: Progress is much more likely going to come, if it comes at all, from learning from what the best athletes in Canada and abroad are already doing, and have done in the past, not from telling them what to do. And, again, the issue is not whether NTCs can work; it is whether they can work if they are made mandatory. My argument is, quite simply, they can't if they don't meet athletes perceived needs, even if you want to argue that athletes are somehow wrong in their perceptions of what they need. (And it is the authoritarian's eternal and unrealizable fantasy to be able to force people to do what's good for them.) Anyway, in practical terms, I don't really think there's much that can be done to make our current best athletes significantly better than they are. Quality is a function of depth of participation, which forcing 10 or 20 of our already top athletes into an NTC is going to have absolutely no effect on, even if these athletes could be induced to accept it and still retain the drive to train. As for swimming, yes, it is highly technical; top coaching makes a vast difference when it comes to performance, no matter how long and hard someone wants to work in the pool, and the top coaches are light-years ahead of the average club coach. There is simply no comparison with running (even in terms of how long it takes to become good). Besides, to think there is is to assume that Aussie runners are utterly complacent, stupid, or both. If they are like top athletes anywhere, I'm certain they've had a very good think about the pros and cons of going to the AIS, and that trying to compel them to do so would be far more trouble than it's worth. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 20, 2010 8:49:58 GMT -5
Steve, or his "oldster" persona, didn't reply to my previous question asking if it's OK for my "pq" persona to call "oldster" an asshole, and I think it's an important unresolved question (if only important to me), so let me have a go from a different angle. "oldster" wrote: ...you would have been called much worse, and in more colourful language, if you tried this on Letsrun. To me, one of the nice things about tnfnorth is a general absence of the sophomoric, moronic chirping from the pimply-faced crowd (I guess I've seen it in some of the threads generated by, and mostly populated by, the younger crowd, but it's largely absent from most of the adult discussions, at least when the adults are contributing), unlike Letsrun. Should I unleash my own inner moron through my "pq" persona and speak to your "oldster" persona in non-literal terms, joining in the occasional exchange of personal insults, or would you prefer to be addressed as though being spoken to in person as the real Steve Boyd? Apologies to others for taking the thread on a possibly unpleasant tangent away from the central discussion. Just trying to resolve a question of etiquette. Don't know about the rest of you... I enjoy blunt exchanges, but not blatant and gratuitous derision and denigration. I don't think Steve's "oldster" character understands the difference. (I know my writing irritates some people too, but for different reasons I think...) (**Editorial note - in case it isn't clear from context, the initial question is hypothetical, aiming for dramatic effect. The real Pete Quinn isn't calling the real Steve Boyd an asshole) |
|
|
|
Post by powerboy on Apr 20, 2010 11:04:03 GMT -5
Trying to keep things going in the right direction, I agree with Kevin about the logic of 4 year carding. That is probably not going to happen, but maybe we could lobby for 2 year carding so that at least one year could be spent without the pressure of a standard. There should still be an injury extension as well, which could stretch it to 3, but then I would be all for having the carded athlete required to demonstrate clear improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 20, 2010 11:48:08 GMT -5
Steve, or his "oldster" persona, didn't reply to my previous question asking if it's OK for my "pq" persona to call "oldster" an asshole, and I think it's an important unresolved question (if only important to me), so let me have a go from a different angle. "oldster" wrote: ...you would have been called much worse, and in more colourful language, if you tried this on Letsrun. To me, one of the nice things about tnfnorth is a general absence of the sophomoric, moronic chirping from the pimply-faced crowd (I guess I've seen it in some of the threads generated by, and mostly populated by, the younger crowd, but it's largely absent from most of the adult discussions, at least when the adults are contributing), unlike Letsrun. Should I unleash my own inner moron through my "pq" persona and speak to your "oldster" persona in non-literal terms, joining in the occasional exchange of personal insults, or would you prefer to be addressed as though being spoken to in person as the real Steve Boyd? Apologies to others for taking the thread on a possibly unpleasant tangent away from the central discussion. Just trying to resolve a question of etiquette. Don't know about the rest of you... I enjoy blunt exchanges, but not blatant and gratuitous derision and denigration. I don't think Steve's "oldster" character understands the difference. (I know my writing irritates some people too, but for different reasons I think...) (**Editorial note - in case it isn't clear from context, the initial question is hypothetical, aiming for dramatic effect. The real Pete Quinn isn't calling the real Steve Boyd an asshole) I didn't see this original question, pq. But, feel free to call me, or oldster, anything you like-- just don't call me late for dinner! If someone's making a good argument, I really don't care what language they use to do it, or how they might embellish it. And if they're not making a good argument and start calling names, it's just ridiculous and funny-- in which case, bring it on! And I completely disagree that my so-called insults and "personal attacks" are ever gratuitous. They are always accompanied by careful argumentation-- unlike the contributions of some of the more polite members of this forum. Take this case particular, which strikes me as simple case of knee-jerk patriotism. Of course we'd all like it if somehow the best Canadian runners chose to train together; but, think about what is actually being suggested here: That we turn the screws on the tiny number of athletes who are clearly getting many things right (or else they wouldn't be in a position to get carding in the first place) in order to maybe make them a little better, and to put them in the service of the vast numbers of other often very talented athletes who are, for one reason or another, not getting it right, or perhaps not even trying! The problem in this sport here in Canada is not that 10 or 20 of our already very good athletes are not going that extra mile; its that hundreds of very talented age group athletes are giving up entirely after high school or university. Perhaps, instead of mandatory NTCs, we should have sports-based internment-style camps for these people (not forced, but you would not get university training or a job until you had developed you full athletic potential)! If all you wanted to do is improve performance, and you believed that athletes could be made to train under coaches and in places not of their choosing, how could you object to this? After all, the authorities would have the power to do it, and these athletes would still have the choice to "take it or leave it", right? As great an idea as this might be, I'd suggest something a little more modest to begin with-- like perhaps reforms to the age-class competition rules, restored funding to junior team travel, and more opportunities for second tier seniors to earn their "international vests" through things like national dual or tri-meets against comparable countries. As appealing in its simplicity as the internment camp options sounds, I'm going to bet that these more modest steps would go a greater distance towards keeping our numbers higher and our elite depth greater. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 20, 2010 11:51:38 GMT -5
P.S. Kevin's idea makes perfect sense, of course-- but it would entail going even easier on our very best people, and could we really stand to do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 20, 2010 15:30:27 GMT -5
... I completely disagree that my so-called insults and "personal attacks" are ever gratuitous. A doctor, lawyer and engineer walked into a message board and complained about your tone... Sounds like the set up to a corny joke, but you might consider that you've been given similar feedback from three different responsible adults, all professionals with multiple degrees, and tone down the unnecessary personal insults. Can't speak for others but in my mind the ad hominem attacks undermine your arguments, as they suggest you see they aren't sufficiently convincing, and need to take a different tack. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 20, 2010 17:25:03 GMT -5
... I completely disagree that my so-called insults and "personal attacks" are ever gratuitous. A doctor, lawyer and engineer walked into a message board and complained about your tone... Sounds like the set up to a corny joke, but you might consider that you've been given similar feedback from three different responsible adults, all professionals with multiple degrees, and tone down the unnecessary personal insults. Can't speak for others but in my mind the ad hominem attacks undermine your arguments, as they suggest you see they aren't sufficiently convincing, and need to take a different tack. Corny, perhaps. Smug, certainly. If an autoworker were to complain it wouldn't count for the same thing? And how exactly can an ad hominen attack undermine an argument? There's the argument, and then there's the attack. If the latter really is gratuitous then it's got nothing to do with the argument. At worst, is an unnecessary add-on, and speaks to speaks poorly of the character of the attacker; it has nothing to do with the logic of his/her position, you dickhead (see what I mean?). If you want to question my character, go ahead, but don't try to use it to impugn the logical force of my argument. I don't know what kind of world you guys live in that you can't take a little strong and direct language. (With my friends, I have been known to start a friendly argument with the phrase "you are fucked in the head". This may well be because I did not grow up middle class, but who knows. It could just be me.) |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 20, 2010 17:46:52 GMT -5
P.S. Read H.L. Mencken and all will be revealed. (I'd like to say I'm channeling him, but it's only really a tiny part of him, like maybe one of his fingernail clippings).
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 20, 2010 17:50:46 GMT -5
(1) Smug, certainly. If an autoworker were to complain it wouldn't count for the same thing? ... (2) If you want to question my character, go ahead, (2a) but don't try to use it to impugn the logical force of my argument. (3) I don't know what kind of world you guys live in that you can't take a little strong and direct language. (4) With my friends, I have been known to start a friendly argument with the phrase "you are fucked in the head". (5) This may well be because I did not grow up middle class, but who knows. It could just be me.) (1) Smug? Statement of fact. Matt's a doc, I'm an engineer, John's a wannabe lawyer. (2) That's what I'm doing. Subtly. (2a) It doesn't take away from any logic you may or may not have applied, but it shows a lack of confidence in your argument. (3) In the adult world. Language I don't mind. Swear all you like. Derision and denigration I don't like so much. (4) I am not your friend, although I think we try to be friendly when we meet or correspond by email. I also take digs at my friends. But I don't try to assassinate their character on message boards. (5) I didn't grow up middle class either. We can pull out our relative youth poverty levels for comparison if you like. But I grew out of the "I can't get you to believe me so I'm going to cut you down in front of the rest of the cool kids" phase when I was a kid. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Apr 20, 2010 18:03:08 GMT -5
A doctor, lawyer and engineer walked into a message board and complained about your tone... Sounds like the set up to a corny joke, but you might consider that you've been given similar feedback from three different responsible adults, all professionals with multiple degrees, I know Oldster has already called you out on this but really? If you wanted to call him out on his tone then by all means do so but no need for the class distinction remarks... |
|
|
|
Post by maser on Apr 20, 2010 18:34:18 GMT -5
When I lived in Aussie we used to call this "Bleating" or Whinging. The verbal bashing reminds me of this; Kind of reminds me of the old Python skit www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbsYou guys need to lighten up. Good insight Kevin on the whole situation. Good call HHH. Cheers KM |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 20, 2010 18:57:29 GMT -5
Edmonton Matt (HHH),
Did you seriously take that as a class distinction remark? If so, I apologize to you and anyone else who may have been offended.
In my perhaps lame dfefence, it sounded funny when I composed it in my head. "A doctor, lawyer and engineer..." When the three complainants were, coincidentally, a doctor, lawyer and an engineer.
Perhaps not sidesplitting in retrospect.
|
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Apr 20, 2010 21:28:07 GMT -5
A doctor, lawyer, an engineer and a former McDonalds manager went on a message board...
is that better?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 20, 2010 23:00:33 GMT -5
Sounds good to me....extra lettuce on my Big Mac, please...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 21, 2010 8:56:45 GMT -5
(1) Smug, certainly. If an autoworker were to complain it wouldn't count for the same thing? ... (2) If you want to question my character, go ahead, (2a) but don't try to use it to impugn the logical force of my argument. (3) I don't know what kind of world you guys live in that you can't take a little strong and direct language. (4) With my friends, I have been known to start a friendly argument with the phrase "you are fucked in the head". (5) This may well be because I did not grow up middle class, but who knows. It could just be me.) (1) Smug? Statement of fact. Matt's a doc, I'm an engineer, John's a wannabe lawyer. (2) That's what I'm doing. Subtly. (2a) It doesn't take away from any logic you may or may not have applied, but it shows a lack of confidence in your argument. (3) In the adult world. Language I don't mind. Swear all you like. Derision and denigration I don't like so much. (4) I am not your friend, although I think we try to be friendly when we meet or correspond by email. I also take digs at my friends. But I don't try to assassinate their character on message boards. (5) I didn't grow up middle class either. We can pull out our relative youth poverty levels for comparison if you like. But I grew out of the "I can't get you to believe me so I'm going to cut you down in front of the rest of the cool kids" phase when I was a kid. 1.(a)You really were being smug here. This isn't the first time you have displayed gratuitous pride in your educational credentials. 2(a)Appendix i, section three: Perhaps you're being TOO subtle, or maybe just missing the point. You actually have to SHOW how my "personal attacks" undermine my argument. 2(b)Appendix ii, section five: It's a relief to be accused of under-confidence. It's usually the opposite. Maybe this means I'm finally getting it about right! 2(c)Subsection b, paragraph 4: You are missing the point. I wasn't saying you were my friend(although I find you to be a generally agreeable sort). I was explaining the secret to my rhetorical style (i.e. I tend to be pretty forceful even with close friends, so what do you imagine is going to happen in the case of faceless usernames on a message board-- but, still, I mean well, and try to make a good argument in the process). 4. (Just 4) Have you considered that you may be turning into an insufferable whinger, bleater, or even tosser? |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 21, 2010 9:27:51 GMT -5
Does "gratuitous pride" even mean anything?
You win. "uncle." I'm a whinger (whatever that is). Until we meet again...
-----
Back on topic, I still feel whatever support system we have in place for development of high level distance runners should encourage the development of a self-sustaining system, not the development of individual athletes. So while Kevin answered that cards are an important source of financial support for many athletes, I still don't know if that answers the broader question.
I like the model the Brooks guys developed for their marathon project, even though it didn't seem to carry its initial momentum in the longer term. Create a place where athletes can get some housing support, free coaching, access to free or low cost therapeutic support, etc, and you encourage the development of good athletes around a group of like minded individuals.
This approach might not work for all runners, and nobody is forcing every athlete to choose to join a group like that.
But I don't think the athlete receiving free money should necessarily complain about conditions imposed by their benefactors. If they don't want to agree to the sponsor's conditions (AC's in this case) they don't have to take the money.
The fact that AC doesn't seem to give a shit about distance running is an important obstacle, mind you...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 21, 2010 9:43:02 GMT -5
Gratuitous as in added to introduced into the discussion without being strictly necessary or relevant (e.g. I used to know a guy who liked to preface comments with the phrase "as a PhD physicist", just to make sure everyone new he was a certifiably "smart guy", and just in case anyone might want to assail as stupid what was about to issue from his talk hole.). In your case, perhaps the precise phrasing should have been "made gratuitous expressions of pride in you academic bona fides", or just "unnecessarily pointed out that you had a PhD."
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 21, 2010 9:51:40 GMT -5
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only time I've mentioned on here explicitly that I survived doctoral studies was in a recent thread when you had called me stupid several times, so I decided to pull that out as objective evidence that I'm at least not likely truly, demonstrably stupid. Of course everyone says (or writes) stupid things from time to time. Some people more than others. I'm not particularly proud that I let you needle me to the point where I felt I had to pull that out. But it can be exasperating debating with a middle aged man who acts like a pre-teen, and I let myself get goaded into using that. I will try not to mention it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 21, 2010 9:59:53 GMT -5
Does "gratuitous pride" even mean anything? You win. "uncle." I'm a whinger (whatever that is). Until we meet again... ----- Back on topic, I still feel whatever support system we have in place for development of high level distance runners should encourage the development of a self-sustaining system, not the development of individual athletes. So while Kevin answered that cards are an important source of financial support for many athletes, I still don't know if that answers the broader question. I like the model the Brooks guys developed for their marathon project, even though it didn't seem to carry its initial momentum in the longer term. Create a place where athletes can get some housing support, free coaching, access to free or low cost therapeutic support, etc, and you encourage the development of good athletes around a group of like minded individuals. This approach might not work for all runners, and nobody is forcing every athlete to choose to join a group like that. But I don't think the athlete receiving free money should necessarily complain about conditions imposed by their benefactors. If they don't want to agree to the sponsor's conditions (AC's in this case) they don't have to take the money. The fact that AC doesn't seem to give a shit about distance running is an important obstacle, mind you... This is not a new idea at all. There have been "training enclaves" since the early 90s. We all know they work, and no one in this thread has argued in favour of an "individual" approach to funding the sport against a better funded "institutional" approach. The difficulty with "enclaves" in Canada is in setting them up, and then finding athletes to enter them. (I know you got into this thread in the first place just to join the (two person) chorus of disapproval of my "tone", but please familiarize yourself with its actual content before commenting on its substance.) And, do we really need a re-statement of journeyman's "they can always take it or leave it if they don't like the rules" (non) argument? Obviously, then can take it or leave it; but, what happens if the rules become so onerous and unrealistic that most of them are forced to leave it --i.e. when, as I've said about 10 times, you have no athletes, or no really good ones, left to administer? How can you build a program if the basic rules are completely out of touch with the reality of the sport on the ground? THAT is the issue. The issue of the "fairness" of the rules, or the "right" of AC to enforce them, does not have to enter into it at all. (Again, please refer to the first 9 pages of the thread). |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 21, 2010 10:09:05 GMT -5
I know you got into this thread in the first place just to join the (two person) chorus of disapproval of my "tone", but please familiarize yourself with its actual content before commenting on its substance. Don't be a fuckwad Steve. I contributed to this thread before you did. Read back to the first page. This latest post is a continuation of the theme I started in my first post, and is connected to my recent question answered by Sully. It's not all about "you" you know. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 21, 2010 13:29:58 GMT -5
I know you got into this thread in the first place just to join the (two person) chorus of disapproval of my "tone", but please familiarize yourself with its actual content before commenting on its substance. Don't be a fuckwad Steve. I contributed to this thread before you did. Read back to the first page. This latest post is a continuation of the theme I started in my first post, and is connected to my recent question answered by Sully. It's not all about "you" you know. My mistake. I perhaps should have said "re-joined" the thread, since it had been a while. Besides, that's no excuse for obviously not paying attention to content of the thread and reintroducing points (and weak ones) that had already been settled. And nice to see you're loosening up a bit. But, it is just like you to miss the point by lurching from one extreme (excessive courtliness) to another (jailhouse vulgarity). Still, it's start, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 21, 2010 13:39:15 GMT -5
My mistake. ... no excuse for obviously not paying attention to content of the thread My irony detector went haywire on this one. ... reintroducing points that had already been settled. I realize you believe that every thought that escapes the front of your head comprises a holy truth, and if you disagree with an idea it is therefore automatically wrong. But not everyone shares your prfound faith in the idea that Steve Boyd's opinions are holy scripture. Nothing in this thread has been "settled." |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 21, 2010 14:05:51 GMT -5
The main content of the thread, not who entered when.
I'm sorry, but there never really was a debate about the relative value of individual versus institutional support, so that can be understood as settled-- unless your intention was to coax someone out of the woodwork to defend an purely individual approach against a better funded institutional one. And I think both hutch and I made it perfectly clear why the "athletes can always take it or leave it" is not actually an argument, in that it is beyond dispute. So, that can be considered settled too. So, what new, useful, and/or unsettled points did you raise again?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 21, 2010 14:20:17 GMT -5
P.S. "Not everyone shares my profound faith in the idea that my opinions (on distance running and the like) are holy scripture"? You mean there actually ARE some people who share my belief on this, just not everyone? Wow, I had no idea!
(Careful, pq, you're going to hurt something!)
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 21, 2010 14:20:38 GMT -5
Steve, let me ask you a question:
------------
I'm not sure if anyone is following me here, as evidently Steve is not, and HE knows he is quite intelligent and wouldn't miss someone's point, therefore I must be making mine badly.
I'm joining this discussion as an interested citizen/taxpayer and fan of the sport (and therefore a stakeholder in the discussion, just in a different way than athletes or coaches who may be directly affected by carding decisions). Examining the original question about carding being tied to NTCs, my (admittedly uninformed on a technical level vis a vis the mechanics of carding) opinion is that there is merit in AC using its limited funding to create financial incentives that spur the development of a sustainable LD development system, rather than funnelling money directly to individual athletes with no strings attached.
Hence I see, irrespective of any direct impacts this might have on individual athletes, that the idea of putting emphasis on the NTCs, in this case by creating incentives for athletes to use them, as being good for the long term health of our sport. If not necessarily ideal for the short term development of individual athletes right now.
When Canadian taxpayer money supporting athletes leaves the country (e.g. Kevin, Perdita, Bairu), there may be short term benefits with respect to their individual development, but no coincident long term benefits associated with strengthening the development infrastructure (coaching development, growth of strong training groups) in the country.
|
|
