|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 23, 2010 9:25:07 GMT -5
(1) Why me all the time, anyway? (2) Like most of the thing you pester me on-- from youth development, to high school eligibility rules, ... (3) why would Hitler and the Nazis have adopted the name National Socialism to describe their distinctly anti-socialist movement? (1) Me me me me me me... it's not all about "you" Steve. It's about what's been written. If I see something I think is stupid, I'll call anybody on it. (2) I've never debated you on youth development or high school eligibility rules. You're being paranoid, and getting me mixed up with some of the other voices in your head. Try to follow the ball... (3) Are you seriously comparing Canadian socialist ideals, and the good things that have come forth (like our universal healthcare) with Hitler's form of national socialism? Really? You advanced a notion that all good things come from acts of "the people" as a means of marginalizing centralized authorities' ability to also achieve good things. You tried (very poorly) to link the development of public works and social programs with decentralized movements by the people. I simply showed (quite handily, I might add) that it's possible for good things to also come from a central authority, even "evil" central authorities. Thus deflating your weak thesis. Now that it's settled that a central authority like AC (which, as it happens, is in place as a result of the normal operations of a democratic society) can indeed do good things (I mean, it's possible, not guaranteed), can we get back to the real issues in the thread? Well, it looks like you actually DO think you're in a position to debate me on this, and that you think that the simple mention of the names Mussolini and Pinochet is enough to do it. Very well. (And you have missed my point about National Socialism with your usual, breathtaking obtuseness. The Nazis used the term "socialism" in response to the fact that something like half a million Germans were, in fact, card carrying socialists or Communists during the Weimar period. I was not comparing Nazism with actual socialism, Canadian or otherwise). I don't know why I bother, but the larger point is this: Progressive reforms may be passed by right wing governments; but, historically, they have always, and I mean always, been in response to popular pressure "from below" (and are are often way short of actual demands). If you'd like to continue attempt to "deflate my weak thesis", why don't you name one historical context in which an authoritarian government, or even a liberal democratic one, actually initiated progressive reform in the absence of pressure "from below"? BTW, I'm starting to notice a pattern here. Your longest posts have lately become ones strictly about yourself-- long, arcane (some would say even naval-gazing) presentations of your training and, lately, your diet (solicited, I know, but in this detail?). The rest have been, well, whatever they have been (e.g. spending 12 pages misunderstanding a simple statement before being finally cornered and having to throw in the towel). You need to consider whether you might be going slowly, inexorably MAD! |
|
|
|
Post by blahblahblah on Apr 23, 2010 9:36:27 GMT -5
"You advanced a notion that all good things come from acts of "the people" as a means of marginalizing centralized authorities' ability to also achieve good things. You tried (very poorly) to link the development of public works and social programs with decentralized movements by the people. I simply showed (quite handily, I might add) that it's possible for good things to also come from a central authority, even "evil" central authorities. Thus deflating your weak thesis. Now that it's settled that a central authority like AC (which, as it happens, is in place as a result of the normal operations of a democratic society) can indeed do good things (I mean, it's possible, not guaranteed), can we get back to the real issues in the thread?"
pq,
I don't think that oldster is debating the fact that centralized authorities have the ability to achieve good things. I think it's more of a question as to whether the ends justify the means. For example, Stalin was able to bring Russia from mediocrity to superpower during his reign but would you have wanted to live in that country while he was ruling? Similarly, if our Government decided that it truly wanted to take Own The Podium seriously, they could take every child in Canada to camps where each child would train in their specialty and, if they didn't meet performance expectations for their age group each year, they would be executed. I'm willing to bet that such a system would "encourage" young athletes to try their best and Canada would most likely be more competitive on the World stage, at least until the population ran out... Does that mean that the ends justified the means?
At any rate, I think that this is a moot point since it seems unlikely to me that AC's plan is going to improve athletics - and distance running in particular - in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Apr 23, 2010 9:37:32 GMT -5
I love this points system, it is so poorly written...
An athlete runs an A Standard 1500m, an A Standard 5000m race and a C Standard 10,000m race. He also set a PB this year in the Triple Jump, as a joke. It was only 5.00m. His other PBs are from 2002. How many points did he earn?
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Apr 23, 2010 9:39:07 GMT -5
That went well.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 23, 2010 9:47:44 GMT -5
(1) Progressive reforms may be passed by right wing governments; but, historically, they have always, and I mean always, been in response to popular pressure "from below" (and are are often way short of actual demands). (2) BTW, I'm starting to notice a pattern here. Your longest posts have lately become ones strictly about yourself-- long, arcane (some would say even naval-gazing) presentations of your training and, lately, your diet (solicited, I know, but in this detail?). (3) You need to consider whether you might be going slowly, inexorably MAD! (1) And this diminishes AC's (people appointed) ability to make good decisions in respect of their mandate exactly how? It doesn't, that's how. (2) Attaboy Steve, there you go... argument lost, time to start with a fresh round of personal attacks. Good one! (I don't think I've written about my own training in any kind of detail in a long time, except in rebuttal to YOU bringing it up, and calling it, inexplicably and indeed ironically, anal, so I think you are lying, or again have me mixed up with one of the other voices...) Please tell me - howcan I engage you in serous, adult conversation when you keep making thing up? First the high school and youth development thing.... now me going on and on recently about my training. Try to keep up with the RECENT discussion, and let the past from 3-4 years ago stay in the pas. (3) I have likely always been at least a little mad. I'll take that as a compliment. ----------- I'll admit I also hadn't read th details of the carding, but from the snippets people are quoting, it seems quite clear what they are doing. AC, at SC's behest it seems, are focussing their invstment on their priority areas via the NTCs. This all seems to be quite in line with their stated strategic objectives, and I would add is probably in line with what most taxpayers (i.e. "the people")want - investing where we have the best chance of fostering excellence. I realize many of us distance runners (a very small subset of "the people") would not be happy with this stance. As a distance runner I'm not particularly pleased, but as a taxpayer/citizen I have to admit that I'm comfortable with the idea of investing our limited resources according to a defensible priority system. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 23, 2010 10:01:38 GMT -5
I love this points system, it is so poorly written... An athlete runs an A Standard 1500m, an A Standard 5000m race and a C Standard 10,000m race. How many points did he earn? Assuming you mean they only run one standard of each then: 1500m = 40/3 = 13.33 5000m = 30/2 = 15 10000m = 20/1 = 20 It is really a poor example though. If you run 3:30.17 for 1500m (A standard), it is HIGHLY likely you are going to have a number of performances under 3:34.95 (B standard) so you are likely to be closer to 33.33 points (assuming one sub 3:30.17 and at least 2 sub 3:34.95 = (40+30+30)/3.) Plus, you are gaining points for top 50 on the IAAF list, your CWG results, plus 10 points for a masive PB as you would be smashing the Canadian record. Additionally, if you are running 3:30.17, you would most definitely be on the London 2012 targeted list which autmatically puts you on the provisional carding list where theoretically all you have to do is meet the benchmarks set by your event group coach, and not really worry about how many points you accumulate. Bottom line is, IF you can run the carding A standard, there is very little to worry about. |
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Apr 23, 2010 10:12:11 GMT -5
Well, it didn't have to be A standards, it could have been any. I just used the A because it was handy, I suppose I should have used the C or D to be less confusing. My point was that there's no provision for crossing the multiple categories. Should you be allowed to take your 5000m points and put them into your 1500m category (40+40+0)/3=26.7? Or would you be allowed to bring your 1500m points up to the 5000m category (40+40)/2=40? Is there a penalty (an athlete can only use performances in each of the divisible categories inside that category, lowering their score) for branching out and running multiple distances? If there's no penalty, what if you're a 400m runner, can you jog a 10,000m and claim that as a 2010 PB?
The criteria isn't clear on how an athlete would be scored if they run a mix of distances.
EDIT: I'll try again:
An athlete runs a 100m in 13 seconds, as a PB. The athlete then runs a single C Standard 5000m and a single D Standard 10000m. How many points does he score?
A. (20+0)/2= 10points
B. (10)/1= 10points
C. (20+10)/2= 15points
D. "A" plus 10 points for the PB.
E. "B" plus 10 points for the PB.
F. "C" plus 10 points for the PB.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 23, 2010 10:44:48 GMT -5
Pq, you are simply devastating. My hat is off to you!
And, you know what, don't bother reading the details that the discussion is based on. Just wing it like you always do. After all, no one has to actually "know" anything to express a valid opinion on it.
I would strongly suspect that most "taxpayers" neither know about this microscopically tiny government expenditure, nor give a flying fuck one way or another about it 95% of the time--and it makes perfect sense that they don't. At least SI is straight-up enough to say he doesn't think the whole thing matters one way or another. If you're not: in position to be carded yourself; have a spouse or kid who might be carded; coach a carded athlete, or may coach one in the near future, why one earth would you bother arguing about this stuff? (You just admitted that you don't even care enough to read the actual guidelines.) You have every right to keep posting, and no one has to read what you write (and, judging from the number of direct responses you're getting from people other than me--and I am completely, insanely delusional-- they usually don't) ; I just really wonder why you bother. I sincerely wonder why you imagine that the contributions of a completely random "average taxpayer" with the only the most peripheral connection to elite sport, and who admits he's not even up to scratch on the details, would be of any use to people like Kevin, Diane, Steller, etc.-- at least on a topic such as this. Kevin, Diane, Stellar, and anyone else with a deep stake in this stuff have have got average, uninformed taxpayers all around them, in the form of various friends, family members and acquaintances, to remind them of what the "average taxpayer" thinks or doesn't think about these matters. Or perhaps you're different, and plan to lead a taxpayer revolt if money continues to be allotted to athletes who choose to train outside the country(?)
P.S. I didn't mean "zany, kooky" mad; I meant completely off the rails mad. Seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 23, 2010 10:58:09 GMT -5
P.S. I stand corrected. You haven't written in detail about your training in a while. This was from way back on April 15 (again, solicited, but still...):
I should add that maybe this is an important philosophical difference in training approach.
Most of my workouts are assigned with the implicit instruction (implicit because it's been said explicitly often enough over the years) that I am expected to finish the session with a certain amount of reserve left in the tank.
For example, I should finish a session of a dozen 400s on short rest knowing for certain that I could manage another couple if I was forced to. Not necessarily wanting to volunteer to do another couple, but knowing for sure I could.
Or in a set of 5 x 1000 on short rest, I should finish KNOWING I could do another at the same pace. Maybe not ENJOY doing another, but I could survive it, and wouldn't have to run it slower to finish.
A small numer of sessions are planned to dig deeper. For example, 5 x 1000 on longer rest at something like 3k pace, I would expect to finish pretty drained, unable to do another at the same pace.
But MOST hard workouts are intended to be finished feeling invigorated but fatigued, with a sense of accomplishment, but not exhausted. No knee grabbing, puking by the side of the track.
And this instruction overrides the primary session design. So if the plan was for 5-6 x 1k, but on the 4th I'm working exponentially harder to just barely finish at the same pace as the previous one, I know I can't do more than one more at the same pace, so I stop at 4. Unless I recognized it early enough to ease back on the pace to get through the session without slowing at the end.
So in fact it isn't really an aborted workout, since a part of the workout design carried the instruction to stop with one left in me.
So I guess what I'm driving at is that completing a workout having done enough hard work (and not more) is the main objective, and having that effort fit exactly within the predetermined workout framework is far less important.
|
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Apr 23, 2010 10:59:01 GMT -5
Bottom line is, IF you can run the carding A standard, there is very little to worry about. Agreed. A Canadian running sub 3:30.17 will likely not have much trouble getting sponsored and earning reasonably appearance fees/prize money on the circuit. I feel a bit sorry for AC as they are in a bit of a tough bind when it comes to Sport Canada funding criteria and a "Own the Podium" mentality. Where i do take issue with AC is that i really don't think they have done a great job marketing and promoting the sport, and obtaining private sector sponsorships. Perhaps AC doesn't have sufficient funds to hire the right people with the skill set to market the sport? If so, then AC should consider getting people on commission (lets say 10-25% commission) and make it worth their while to chase down $20M - $50M annual sponsorships. Sport administrators are not marketers and shouldn't think they likely have the knowledge, contacts, or ability to market the sport successfully. Leave it to the professionals. Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world so i don't buy the argument that there isn't private money out there for non-mainstream sports. What is lacking is the complete overhaul of marketing the sport and specific targeting of wealthy individuals and corporations for funding/sponsorship. If darts can get television contracts and sponsorships then so can athletics. And yes, i definitely think we need to explore partnering up with the breweries, and (heaven forbid) the fast food companies. Make track, road and xc races interesting events that people want to come to and companies want to sponsor. Perhaps we need to get past endlessly bashing AC and start fixing the sport ourselves. Feel free to bash away. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 23, 2010 11:04:39 GMT -5
There has NEVER been provisions for crossing multiple categories. All criteria in the past that have required mulitple performances require those performances in the same event. So to again answer your question if you cross multiple categories then you take whatever event you score the best average in, add in your placing points, world list points, PB points if any, and training environment points. The criteria is different, but it really not that confusing to figure out. It probably should be stated in the document that those carding points are based on single events as it would be confusing to someone who is new to AAP support, but anyone who has been carded or followed carding procedures, or been involved in any of the threads on past years carding should already know this. Well, it didn't have to be A standards, it could have been any. I just used the A because it was handy, I suppose I should have used the C or D to be less confusing. My point was that there's no provision for crossing the multiple categories. Should you be allowed to take your 5000m points and put them into your 1500m category (40+40+0)/3=26.7? Or would you be allowed to bring your 1500m points up to the 5000m category (40+40)/2=40? Is there a penalty (an athlete can only use performances in each of the divisible categories inside that category, lowering their score) for branching out and running multiple distances? If there's no penalty, what if you're a 400m runner, can you jog a 10,000m and claim that as a 2010 PB? The criteria isn't clear on how an athlete would be scored if they run a mix of distances. EDIT: I'll try again: An athlete runs a 100m in 13 seconds, as a PB. The athlete then runs a single C Standard 5000m and a single D Standard 10000m. How many points does he score? A. (20+0)/2= 10points B. (10)/1= 10points C. (20+10)/2= 15points D. "A" plus 10 points for the PB. E. "B" plus 10 points for the PB. F. "C" plus 10 points for the PB. |
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Apr 23, 2010 11:11:49 GMT -5
Thanks Kevin. I'm pleading innocent to trolling on this. I really didn't know the answer and I know someone (carded for years, btw) who needed to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 23, 2010 11:12:49 GMT -5
Well, it didn't have to be A standards, it could have been any. I just used the A because it was handy, I suppose I should have used the C or D to be less confusing. My point was that there's no provision for crossing the multiple categories. Should you be allowed to take your 5000m points and put them into your 1500m category (40+40+0)/3=26.7? Or would you be allowed to bring your 1500m points up to the 5000m category (40+40)/2=40? Is there a penalty (an athlete can only use performances in each of the divisible categories inside that category, lowering their score) for branching out and running multiple distances? If there's no penalty, what if you're a 400m runner, can you jog a 10,000m and claim that as a 2010 PB? The criteria isn't clear on how an athlete would be scored if they run a mix of distances. EDIT: I'll try again: An athlete runs a 100m in 13 seconds, as a PB. The athlete then runs a single C Standard 5000m and a single D Standard 10000m. How many points does he score? A. (20+0)/2= 10points B. (10)/1= 10points C. (20+10)/2= 15points D. "A" plus 10 points for the PB. E. "B" plus 10 points for the PB. F. "C" plus 10 points for the PB. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 23, 2010 11:13:24 GMT -5
Pq, you are simply devastating. I didn't mean "zany, kooky" mad; I meant completely off the rails mad. Seriously. I know, and stupid, obtuse, anal, .... Grow up Steve. Please stick to the meat of the discussion, leave the adolescent insults for yucks with friends. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 23, 2010 11:15:34 GMT -5
He scores 10 performance points: Either the 5000m C standard/2 or the 10000m D standard/1. Well, it didn't have to be A standards, it could have been any. I just used the A because it was handy, I suppose I should have used the C or D to be less confusing. My point was that there's no provision for crossing the multiple categories. Should you be allowed to take your 5000m points and put them into your 1500m category (40+40+0)/3=26.7? Or would you be allowed to bring your 1500m points up to the 5000m category (40+40)/2=40? Is there a penalty (an athlete can only use performances in each of the divisible categories inside that category, lowering their score) for branching out and running multiple distances? If there's no penalty, what if you're a 400m runner, can you jog a 10,000m and claim that as a 2010 PB? The criteria isn't clear on how an athlete would be scored if they run a mix of distances. EDIT: I'll try again: An athlete runs a 100m in 13 seconds, as a PB. The athlete then runs a single C Standard 5000m and a single D Standard 10000m. How many points does he score? A. (20+0)/2= 10points B. (10)/1= 10points C. (20+10)/2= 15points D. "A" plus 10 points for the PB. E. "B" plus 10 points for the PB. F. "C" plus 10 points for the PB. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 23, 2010 11:21:10 GMT -5
If you're not: in position to be carded yourself; have a spouse or kid who might be carded; coach a carded athlete, or may coach one in the near future, why one earth would you bother arguing about this stuff? It's my money being spent too, isn't it? And I am a distance runner and fan of the sport. What's your stake? Are you a carded athlete, or do you coach any carded athletes? Married to a carded athlete? Other immediate family or friends are carded athletes? I generally approach these threads as "discussions," not arguments. I'm not trying to "win" the thread or achieve world peace. I'm trying to entertain myself (and maybe a couple of others) by bantering about my sport. That said, I will admit I take a certain guilty pleasure in arguing against stupid points poorly made by those with an inflated view of the value of their opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 23, 2010 11:24:44 GMT -5
Pq, you are simply devastating. I didn't mean "zany, kooky" mad; I meant completely off the rails mad. Seriously. I know, and stupid, obtuse, anal, .... Grow up Steve. Please stick to the meat of the discussion, leave the adolescent insults for yucks with friends. Just going by the evidence here, man. We are as we say/do/write. And for a primer on actual adolescent insults, see any one of about 20 ongoing threads. When you find a teenage guy calling another guy "obtuse" in, say, the "OFSAA Preds" thread, be sure to let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 23, 2010 11:30:37 GMT -5
If you're not: in position to be carded yourself; have a spouse or kid who might be carded; coach a carded athlete, or may coach one in the near future, why one earth would you bother arguing about this stuff? It's my money being spent too, isn't it? And I am a distance runner and fan of the sport. What's your stake? Are you a carded athlete, or do you coach any carded athletes? Married to a carded athlete? Other immediate family or friends are carded athletes? I generally approach these threads as "discussions," not arguments. I'm not trying to "win" the thread or achieve world peace. I'm trying to entertain myself (and maybe a couple of others) by bantering about my sport. That said, I will admit I take a certain guilty pleasure in arguing against stupid points poorly made by those with an inflated view of the value of their opinions. I coach one carded athlete and was in decent position to be federally carded a couple of times in my career (and received provincial support-- now called "Quest for Gold"-- for years as an open athlete). As an active coach, I also fully expect to coach more athletes with the potential to be carded. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 23, 2010 12:55:40 GMT -5
When you find a teenage guy calling another guy "obtuse" in, say, the "OFSAA Preds" thread, be sure to let me know. Fair enough. And you can let me know when another adult calls someone an "asshole" or "off his meds." Unless it's me of course... I'm really starting to enjoy the freedom of abandoning normal adult decorum, so I may stray. No need to tell me if I do. Since I'll already know. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 23, 2010 16:26:44 GMT -5
Damn,
A long post just got "lost in space"...
So, I will try again, and hopefully it won't show up twice...
In response to an earlier post from "saskatchewan", there is some truth to AC being caught a bit between a rock and a hard place, in terms of the OTP bullshit. Obviously, it's not just an AC program, but AC does seem to be enjoying taking it to the max., much to the detriment of the long-term development of the sport of distance-running, and much to the benefit of a very small number of coaches and athletes in "other" events.
What you call "AC bashing", others might call setting the stage for the Revolution.
And yes, more private sector input in marketing and fund-raising is vital. But certainly, if the distance running community got organized and raised some money, and used that money to buy some leverage into AC policies and programs, that would not be accepted or appreciated, by either AC, or especially the other event-groups. I don't see a workable solution from within the narrow confines of the currently stated AC goals and priorities, do you? Or does anyone? What am I missing here?
To be brutally honest, our endurance runners have much more in common with cyclists, swimmers, triathletes, rowers, x-c skiers, etc., than they do with hammer throwers or triple jumpers --- no offence intended to anyone...
|
|
|
|
Post by hammercrazy on Apr 23, 2010 16:43:45 GMT -5
no offence taken!
In fact, I think I agree with all aspects of your post.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 23, 2010 17:17:01 GMT -5
When you find a teenage guy calling another guy "obtuse" in, say, the "OFSAA Preds" thread, be sure to let me know. Fair enough. And you can let me know when another adult calls someone an "asshole" or "off his meds." Unless it's me of course... I'm really starting to enjoy the freedom of abandoning normal adult decorum, so I may stray. No need to tell me if I do. Since I'll already know. Great! I can see this has been good for you; you sound as giddy as a schoolgirl with this new found freedom! But, remember, it doesn't go over nearly as well if it doesn't include any real substance, and it helps to avoid the really heavy-handed, clumsy stuff ("fuckwad" would be a good example.) P.S. You're really having a hard time letting go of that "off his meds" thing, aren't you? You'd think I'd invented the phrase, rather than picked it up from the 10,000 other times it's been used in the popular media. Even old Ronny, to whom it was directed in jest (after he, also in partial jest, called me a moron) seems have recovered from the trauma of the experience and has managed to carry on. Speaking of which, why aren't you assailing his last post, or any of his posts on this, which are every bit as stridently AC as anything I've ever said? Oh right, he has never hurt your feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 23, 2010 17:43:21 GMT -5
Sorry Steve, I missed this softball from earlier: We are as we say/do/write. Guess I filtered it out with the rest of the "blah blah blah..." So let me simply point that right back at you: Mull that over a bit... behave like an asshole on a message board, then by extension... I'll allow you to connect the dots. You know, the difference between you and me (OK, one difference - you're faster, older, thinner, I'm better looking and more intelligent), is that I KNOW I'm being an asshole in my interaction with you in this thread. ------------------ Question for everyone else... for those who've studied the carding standards in detail, are the LD standards roughly equivalent to those for most of the other events, or is harder for an LD athlete to get carded ON TOP of the fact there's no NTC at which to earn those extra points? |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 23, 2010 19:04:27 GMT -5
Sorry Steve, I missed this softball from earlier: We are as we say/do/write. Guess I filtered it out with the rest of the "blah blah blah..." So let me simply point that right back at you: Mull that over a bit... behave like an asshole on a message board, then by extension... I'll allow you to connect the dots. You know, the difference between you and me (OK, one difference - you're faster, older, thinner, I'm better looking and more intelligent), is that I KNOW I'm being an asshole in my interaction with you in this thread. ------------------ Question for everyone else... for those who've studied the carding standards in detail, are the LD standards roughly equivalent to those for most of the other events, or is harder for an LD athlete to get carded ON TOP of the fact there's no NTC at which to earn those extra points? Hey, filter things out-- that's what you DO! (And looking at me objectively on here, I would say I'm a guy who's wasted way too much time running, and thinking about running, and who enjoys delivering the odd well-earned pillorying.) And I'll field your questions, since I'm near my computer anyway (taking enormous, if somewhat guilty, pleasure in pillorying YOU): That, like the thing about institutional vs. individual funding and the whole "they can take or leave it" redundancy, was already addressed in the thread about 7 pages ago. As notcanadian pointed out, you could have made it to Beijing in the 10k as a 25 year old and not be eligible to even APPLY for carding this year with the same time, whereas you can apply for carding in the 1500 as a 22 year old, after 4 years of university competition with a time a very good Canadian high schooler might run (3:43), and no where near what it would take to go to the Olympics. This isn't even about carding points or NTCs; it's about APPLYING for carding in the first place. (BTW, you could have figured this out yourself, simply by clicking the handy link to the standards-- in the first post of the thread!) I actually agree with thinskinned that 28:02 is not an unreasonable time to expect to get carding at the age of 27; but, this does not excuse making certain other standards so much easier-- if, that is, you're claiming to want to develop track and field as a whole sport, and not just find ways to maximize the funding of the sport federation, as if it amounted to the same thing (i.e. by aiming to exploit the relatively soft underbelly of the sport globally). I agree that Canadian athletes could and should be running faster in the distance events but disagree that simply making the standards harder, while also making them easier in the mid-distance events, thereby discouraging athletes from taking the risk of losing a year's carding in trying to move up to an event in which they might ultimately be better (see Diane's dilemma), is the way to improve the situation. (However, it is good to see they're recognizing this problem in setting the standards for the marathon.) One other thing about basing the age-grading of the standards on the average ages of world-ranked athletes (and something DST reminded me of recently): The African athlete who dominate these lists don't actually "peak" physically at the ages at which they record their P.B.s-- and this has nothing to do with the issue of fake ages (still an important consideration). Africans typically retire from the sport as soon as they have enough money to do so, skewing the age numbers for "peak performance" downward. As guys like Tergat and Geb have shown us, the real physiological peak age for distance runners, Africans included, is probably much older than the raw numbers would suggest. If you want to continue to do it seriously, you can probably stay quite good, or even improve at certain distances, well into your mid-30s, and probably even later for women. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 23, 2010 19:28:01 GMT -5
OK, I looked at the carding standards, and it seems like the lower tier LD standards are "harder" than the other ones, at least if you use Mercier tables. Looking at the 18 yo D standard for 100m (10.64), it's FAR easier than the 18 yo D standard for 10000 (29:25). Mercier tables make the 10.64 equivalent to 29:56. The 1500 standard is the Mercier equivalent of 29:59. the 2+ yo 100m standards (28:05 equivalent) are a little easier than the 10k standard (27:56).
I didn't study all standards in detail, but those LD D standards at least are "harder" than standards in AC's target disciplines. 5k standards look roughly equivalent to 10k, but then marathon D standards are a bit easier.
It strikes me on first glance that the A standards are more uniform across the events in terms of "difficulty."
Sorry if I missed this part of the discussion, but has anyone explained the rationale behind tougher lower tier standards for LD events? Or the general rationale behind the standards?
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 23, 2010 19:30:01 GMT -5
Hey, filter things out-- that's what you DO! I'm adept at filtering out the noise. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 23, 2010 19:30:20 GMT -5
Damn, And yes, more private sector input in marketing and fund-raising is vital. But certainly, if the distance running community got organized and raised some money, and used that money to buy some leverage into AC policies and programs, that would not be accepted or appreciated, by either AC, or especially the other event-groups. I don't see a workable solution from within the narrow confines of the currently stated AC goals and priorities, do you? Or does anyone? What am I missing here? I gotta disagree Ron. Just look at what BMP and Ottawa Marathon were able to accomplish last year with the World Champs Marathon initiative. While AC still had their hand in certain aspects of the selection process it really was a collaboration between the groups due to some serious financial backing for the project that made it possible for us to have a marathon presence at a major championship for the first time in a number of years. Without the $$ offered up to make that project work I highly doubt AC would have even considered it. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 23, 2010 19:32:45 GMT -5
Just look at what BMP and Ottawa Marathon and Scotiabank Marathon were able to accomplish last year with the World Champs Marathon initiative. Minor correction to give appropriate credit where serious credit is due. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 23, 2010 19:33:40 GMT -5
There is no physiological reason that I am aware of, that stops athletes in the distance running events from improving at least into their mid-30's, and still running very well for another decade or more after that. And I would add that includes athletes who are well into their career and family life --- anything else is just an excuse...
Old Ronny? How about gently getting older Ronnie....Thanks, OLDSTER...
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 23, 2010 19:52:50 GMT -5
Just look at what BMP and Ottawa Marathon and Scotiabank Marathon were able to accomplish last year with the World Champs Marathon initiative. Minor correction to give appropriate credit where serious credit is due. Yes, most definitely...appologies for the omission |
|
