|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 23, 2010 19:54:11 GMT -5
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? Earlier in the thread, I made the same assumption as you -- that the LD standards were harder than the MD ones, and that this reflected a deliberate decision. It turns out that I was mistaken: all of the standards were set using identical algorithms. Here's the relevant passage: "More specifically, A standards are based on seasonal best performances of medalists at the last 3 Olympic Games. B standards are based on seasonal best performances of 12th place finishers at the last 3 Olympic Games while C and D standards are based on the developmental progression curves and the associated standard deviations of all athletes finishing in the top 16 at the Sydney, Athens, and Beijing Olympic Games. The study involved statistical analysis of more than 2,000 international athlete careers." Now, my personal sense is that this is a case of over-engineering, making it more complicated than it needs to be. That being said, the goals are reasonable (tipping the scales towards developing athletes), and the methodology is defensible (it's based on objective rather than subjective data). It's not how I'd do it, but neither is it as blatantly unfair as, say, awarding a disproportionate number of points for training at a training centre that doesn't even exist for distance runners. Ultimately, the new system seems to reward process over results. For funding purposes, it's now better to be slow but training with one of the (surprisingly few) approved coaches than to be fast while training with an unapproved group like, say, Speed River. And god forbid you should train by yourself with, say, Peter Coe guiding your training. The flip side is, hopefully, the development of strong NTCs that spur the development of the sport across the country. If that's going to have any appreciable effect, there should be 20 of them, not four or five. I don't see how forcing the few elite runners in Canada's most populous cities and provinces to move to BC is going to inspire the next generation. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 23, 2010 19:57:26 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? It's been explained by AC (http://www.athletics.ca/admin/..%5Cfiles%5C%5CNationalTeamPrograms%5CAthleteServices%5CCarding%5C2010%20SUPPLEMENTARY%20INFORMATION%20TO%20CARDING%20CRITERIA%20-EN.PDF) "In order to accomplish this alignment, AC first endeavoured to chart the pathway athletes take to World Top 16 performances. Since Sport Canada’s AAP funding objective is to produce top 16 athletes, this data assists AC in allocating its resources as effectively as possible. Statistical analyses based on the seasonal bests of all athletes who were top 16 at the 3 most recent Olympic Games were used to generate the progression standards that are published with the criteria. More specifically, A standards are based on seasonal best performances of medalists at the last 3 Olympic Games. B standards are based on seasonal best performances of 12th place finishers at the last 3 Olympic Games while C and D standards are based on the developmental progression curves and the associated standard deviations of all athletes finishing in the top 16 at the Sydney, Athens, and Beijing Olympic Games. The study involved statistical analysis of more than 2,000 international athlete careers. This data will enable AC to allocate its resources effectively and objectively as described by the high performance pathway." |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Apr 23, 2010 20:09:51 GMT -5
anything else is just an excuse... Exactly right and yet this entire thread is about the structure of an external entity that is always the scapegoat. |
|
tb400
Junior Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by tb400 on Apr 23, 2010 20:13:26 GMT -5
Did they factor out world top 16 performances by athlete later found to be doping (such as LaShawn and Rashid Ramzi)?
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Apr 23, 2010 20:22:51 GMT -5
Did they factor out world top 16 performances by athlete later found to be doping (such as LaShawn and Rashid Ramzi)? If that athlete was taken out of the results due to a doping violation then they were taken out of AC's calculation. So in Rashid's case he should have been taken out. As Merrit was popped in the off-season his results will stand. Interestingly, Rashid not getting caught would actually makes the deveopment curve easier though since he was only running 3:39 the year before he dropped to 3:30. 2004 3:30.25 2003 3:39.30 2002 3:44.85 The young Kenyans and Ethiopians are the ones that skew the development curve and make the LD standards so difficult (perferct example would be Defar and Dibaba) |
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Apr 23, 2010 21:51:03 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... Ron, I completely agree with you (as i do with most of your posts). Just to clarify, i think we need to work with AC (supporting athlete reps like Kevin) while at the same time developing a long-distance funding solution with the private sector that would likely be independent of AC. Bashing may have been the wrong term, but i have no ill will against AC. When one works in any organization one notes that many things often are not done as 'efficiently' or as 'practically' as we would do them. AC like any organization has its strengths and weaknesses. AC as a national body will likely always exist in some form, but the funding solution for distance running does not lay with AC, but with grass roots supporters who organize alternative solutions and relationships with the private sector. So in that sense, yes it is a 'revolution' but one that does not necessarily seek to dispose of AC, just work directly with distance athletes. To be clear, ideally i would propose private sector funding admistered independently of AC. I would encourage us to look at some of the interesting and encouraging signs of distance rebirth that are springing up south of the border, while incorporating the best ideas here at home, and those of other nations. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 23, 2010 23:01:37 GMT -5
Yes, sask., I agree with most of your stuff...
Of course, my position is not anti-AC, but pro-distance running, and I know that many share that perspective. We need to find ways to value our distance runners, whether on the road, the track, or over the country, that is independent of OTP... That's my bottom line...
It surprises me that Canada, more than any other Nation, should be embracing an OTP philosophy and policy. Where were these people during the 1980's? Seoul, Ben Johnson, Dubin Inquiry - hello, is anybody in there? Charlie Francis was a friend and a colleague, a brilliant coach, and one of the most knowledgeable guys in the World regarding his part of the sport. And when he clearly explained to Dubin and company, his awareness of what was going in the big World of Track & Field, and that required him to help his athletes get on what he considered an even playing field with the rest of the World, well, I can't believe we didn't learn from that.... OTP - does that mean "cheat to win", if that is what is required???
That's the message I take from our National Sport Policy, and I hate it...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 24, 2010 15:09:26 GMT -5
Old Ronny? How about gently getting older Ronnie....Thanks, OLDSTER... Like an good scotch, Ron, a good scotch. (In fact, "Old Ronny" would be a great name for one.) |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 24, 2010 16:59:47 GMT -5
Old Ronny? How about gently getting older Ronnie....Thanks, OLDSTER... Like an good scotch, Ron, a good scotch. (In fact, "Old Ronny" would be a great name for one.) Aha, there we go, Steve.....Old Ronny - I like it... We could make a fortune and donate it to Canadian Distance Running ! |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 24, 2010 17:29:49 GMT -5
Would Old Ronny be good for distance runners?
(nutritionally, I mean)
|
|
|
|
Post by maser on Apr 24, 2010 18:36:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Apr 26, 2010 10:29:25 GMT -5
Interesting article on post Olympic sponsorship experiences for Olympic gold medalists. olympics.thestar.com/2010/article/800082--turning-gold-into-cash-isn-t-easy-for-canadian-olympiansPerhaps it might be useful to include manditory basic finance/economic/marketing courses with carding so that athletes realizes that their likely value to a potential private sector sponsor for running fast around a track or flying fast down a bobsled course is likely $0 until they prove otherwise. The article has relatively good discussion on need for 'branding' of an athlete. |
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Apr 26, 2010 15:13:14 GMT -5
good article. I really wonder what percentage of all (not just medalists) our most recent Summer and Winter Olympic athletes makes more $100,000 per year.
As a comparison, I wonder what percentage of our sport administrators and fully paid coaches get paid more than $100,000 per year?
Interesting comparision. Of course, there is a lot less of the latter, than the former, and a few adminstrators/coaches can serve many athletes. So maybe % isn't the best comparision factor.
|
|
