Canadians: What is up with your crazy Olympic qualifying process?

Lyndon Larouche wrote:

If they roughly budget for 12 athletes and only 4-5 qualify, what do they do with the rest of the money? I am guessing they do not have a big party with it. Does it go to promote more promising athletes? Do they just keep it?

Do you know for sure that it is AC that pays for Olympic teams and not the COC?

Thanks for the explanation. I oppose your conclusion but now have a better understanding. The real key in my opinion is to make this argument to wealthy patrons and corporate sponsors. I'm not of the opinion that the government should be involved. Why? Then they'll need to come up with some similar cockamanie funding formula. The only hope is if funding Athletics produces more votes on Election Day.

Pipping wrote:

The real key in my opinion is to make this argument to wealthy patrons and corporate sponsors. I'm not of the opinion that the government should be involved. Why? Then they'll need to come up with some similar cockamanie funding formula. The only hope is if funding Athletics produces more votes on Election Day.

A nice concept, the idea to get private sponsors. Perhaps no one has thought of this yet?

If you have a look at the AC financials on page 13 from 2010:

you'll see that out of $6 million in revenues, over $4.4 million of that came from Sport Canada (Ministry of Canadian Heritage).

Barely $200k in cash came from sponsors and less than $400k in kind sponsorships.

Do you know of any wealthy patron or corporate sponsor who hasn't yet been approached that might be willing to fork over $4 million/year indefinitely? What would be in it for them?

Note that Nike is already a sponsor.

Thanks for explaining in more detail, but I am not sure I was "close", I think I said exactly what you said.

Second, what is the thought experiment meant to show me? I get it, AC wants to keep its funding. I see this as chickening out.

By playing within the status quo they support it.

An option is to let athletes self fund if they meet IAAF standards but not AC standards. This option is not great, but is a middle ground. Then don't count those athletes in the funding mix.

In all cases though, support staff should be cut.

That's where you are 'close' but not quite getting it. If AC doesn't 'chicken out' and gives the middle finger to their primary source of income, what do you think will happen in years going forward? Do you genuinely believe that the $4.4 million from Sport Canada will get bigger?

If not, then how many other teams and programs are you willing to see cut as AC has to struggle with a drastically reduced budget? It's not like slashing any and all support and admin staff is going to make that kind of difference (aside from the fact that many former national team members have acknowledged that there is an awful lot for those admin and support staff to actually do at these international meets).

And the alternative is what? Let me know when you've found $4.4+ million each and every year in order to replace the status quo. We're talking about 70% of the AC budget, certainly not chump change.

We'll ignore the fact that it is the COC that controls the Olympic teams, not AC, and that they don't have a 2-tier team whereby some athletes are funded and others are not. (Do the self-funders have to make their own team uniforms? Do they have to ride in the luggage compartment on the plane?)

But it certainly is not any kind of 'middle ground'. Do you honestly believe that self-funding for a handful of B standard athletes is going to make any kind of significant dent in that $4.4 million you want to thumb your nose at?

Back to the thought experiment, would you get very far with your landlord when he demanded rent money you didn't have because you decided to do a week of easy 10 milers that cost you $20 a pop?

Because it warms the hearts of the Canadian public to read about our Olympic athletes bowing out in the early going because there was no one there to give them physio, chiro or massages. Or to make sure they got their accreditation correct, had transportation to their competition venue or supervised their final tune-up workouts.

Getting top 3 at the Canadian trials will not be an easy task, there gon be runners, specifically in that 5k who have not lost or have only lost to a runner or two this yea, while levins will perhaps have lost to more--regardless of time as winning percentage may be more important. Also, ballers will give Levins a run for his money (both figuratively and perhaps literally). These guys arent your typical runners runner so to speak, but they can win if they want it--question is, do they want that title or are satisfied with blowin escorts and partying among other things. And if that Chainsaw guy does the 10k, he will win cuz he got swag so that means 1 of bairu/mo speed/levins will be 4th at best in the 10k if they all run it. Bairu lost that drive IMO after he set Canadian record and had great world xc. That desire is hard to git back, he workin but really his mind is not there--he don made it already when he set records. and for the people sayin levins is done after this year or next n he will burn out n shit--nah, if his performances decline it's cuz he don made it in his mind and achieved what he set out to do--so screw the haters who can't run as fast as these runners--them haterz on the bench like tha bus comin and they aint playin!

gititgottagitit, I'd be glad to read your post once you translate it into English. Thanks in advance.

Lyndon Larouche wrote:

If they roughly budget for 12 athletes and only 4-5 qualify, what do they do with the rest of the money? I am guessing they do not have a big party with it. Does it go to promote more promising athletes? Do they just keep it?

Um, yeah wrote:

Do you know for sure that it is AC that pays for Olympic teams and not the COC?

Why be a patronizing d-bag? Just please answer the question.

Despite your condescending tone, I appreciate your informed view on this topic (rare on this board), although I do disagree with it.

However, you miss the point on my middle ground solution.

AC does not refuse its funding, however it negotiates an agreement that such funding is not contingent on the performance of self funded athletes.

Then any athletes in the "gap" pay their own plane, hotel, meals, etc. Things like uniforms, physio support, admin, can either be carried by AC (small cost - can be made back by not bringing an extra "coach" or however they want), or by the athlete paying AC an agreed-upon amount to cover such costs.

Is this a great solution - no. However, does it allow Canada to bring as many athletes as possible without jeopardizing AC's funding - yes.

Does having a full team act to inspire more runners, thereby increasing our talent pool? I think so.

asdfsdafsd wrote:

Despite your condescending tone, I appreciate your informed view on this topic (rare on this board), although I do disagree with it.

I'm not sure what it is you disagree with. I said that pretty much everyone agrees if you send more athletes you are likely to develop more athletes going forward.

Or are you disagreeing with the statement that AC's criteria are not a rational response to the constraints placed upon them?

AC does not refuse its funding, however it negotiates an agreement that such funding is not contingent on the performance of self funded athletes.

I think the problem here is that you are looking at the AC/Sport Canada/COC relationship in a vacuum, ignoring the existence of dozens of other sports receiving funding and sending athletes to the Olympics.

What incentive is there for Sport Canada to open the door to piece-meal negotiations with each and every sport with regards to modifications to their funding formula which, in the purely bureaucratic manner they are evaluated, would be against their stated 'Own the podium' intent?

For the COC, what incentive would there be for them to create a two-tier team whereby most of the athletes are funded, while there is a small contingent of self-funded lesser qualified athletes? How do they distinguish administratively who is who? Do the self-funders not get to be in the team picture or promotional events? Do they get access to the funded physio and support team or do they have to pay user fees for that as well?

How would the COC like to manage the public relations of sending such a two-tier team? (Or are they really 'sending' that second tier since they are 'self-funded?)

I know this sounds like I'm being picky and negative, but the argument you are making is purely a one-sided one that will only benefit the recipients (AC and the B standard athletes) and cause significantly more hassle to the party in control (Sport Canada or COC). They have little to no reason to have any interest in even opening up talks towards changes such as you suggest.

A fundamental point that needs to be grasped is that this isn't just about Athletics, but about all sports in Canada.

If you are the money man at Sport Canada and only have X amount of money, what criteria do you use to determine what percentage of X goes to each sport in the country? If you want to give more to Athletics, you need to give less to someone else and you need to be able to justify why beyond just saying 'posters on letsrun want to see B standard athletes on the track' because every other sport can make the exact same argument about their athletes.

You don't think Canada winning swimming medals gets more people into swimming? Or winning speed skating medals increases the numbers in those clubs? How many people do you think were motivate to do a triathlon after Whitfield's gold medal?

That's what the sport of athletics is competing against.

You don't have to convince me. You need to make the argument to the nameless Sport Canada bureaucrats or the holders of the public purse at the federal level that there is something better there is something better to be had by sending a B standard track guy than a medal-threat boxer or diver.

Lyndon Larouche wrote:

Why be a patronizing d-bag? Just please answer the question.

If AC isn't just given a pot of money at the start of the year based on how many athletes they 'budget' will make the Olympics, there is no incentive for them to then limit the team and keep any savings.

Your question is more appropriate to the COC.

Athletics New Zealand are equally a bunch of jerks. Although our qualifying rules aren’t quite the same as Canada's they do make it very difficult for the athletes whom they should be supporting.

I remember when Aish bombed out at the Olympics, it was because he was forced to 'show his fitness' and run a major 10km a few weeks out from the Olympics. His training had been going well, but by the time the Olympics rolled around he was shot. Of course they didn't pick him again.

Athletics NZ used to give NZ'ers a chance, and because of this we have a strong history of performing well at the Olympics and reputation for producing good track and field athletes. We had a lot of success with Snell, who despite having only run 1:47 won gold at the 1960 games. Now NZ has this good reputation athletics NZ don't want it to be tarnished and make it difficult for young people to get into major championships. Despite the fact that the experience of being at the Olympics can produce some amazing results in and of itself, it also provides an amazing development platform for being able to complete in other major championships in the future.

....case in point Jacko Gill.

Honestly athletics NZ are party why I left the sport. No support and a bunch of disappointing officious pricks.

Um, yeah wrote:

Barely $200k in cash came from sponsors and less than $400k in kind sponsorships.

Do you know of any wealthy patron or corporate sponsor who hasn't yet been approached that might be willing to fork over $4 million/year indefinitely? What would be in it for them?

Given Canada's wealth and the advertising value of sponsoring Olympic athletes, I'm surprised that all that AC can come up with from sponsors is just under $700,000.

$4 million a year is chump change for any one of the big Canadian banks or insurance companies, any of the big oil and gas companies in Calgary, etc., or for any company that has a big retail presence in Canada.

I would think that a good development office at AC should be able to raise at least $4 million a year in private funds.

Speedriver/UoG/DST raised a million in a short period of time.

asdfsdafsd wrote:

Speedriver/UoG/DST raised a million in a short period of time.

They did and it was really cool how people like reid coolsaet donated a bunch of their own money to help with the cause.

Also, thanks to everyone who donated their money to run canada and all for the run campaigns so that reid could get his money back.

Um, yeah wrote:

Lyndon Larouche wrote:

If they roughly budget for 12 athletes and only 4-5 qualify, what do they do with the rest of the money? I am guessing they do not have a big party with it. Does it go to promote more promising athletes? Do they just keep it?

Do you know for sure that it is AC that pays for Olympic teams and not the COC?

We know one thing. It is not a funding issue.

Um, Yeah,

Have you got a source for your claim "The metric they are being evaluated by Sport Canada (their primary source of income) is what percentage of the team places top 12 (or top 8 or medals)"?

After several years of working with Sport Canada's Sport Funding and Accountability Framework, this is the first I've ever heard that it's the percentage of the team producing high-level results counts.

I think AC's standards for the Olympic Games are more a reflection of the standards the COC has imposed. Note the difference in the Canadian standards between summer Games and the last two winter Games.

It's entirely possible I may have misunderstood the criteria.

There is some explanation of the evaluation at

While I don't see how the scores breakdown for each sport for the different criteria, there is a ranking of all sports at

which shows that Athletics is well down the list nationally (but at least we kick Sport Parachuting's ass).

Ultimately that leaves a heck of a lot of other sports with a higher claim to funding that athletics and that is what needs to be improved.

Quite possible, although note above that Sport Canada funding within the SFAF does include measurement of performance at both Olympics and World Champs (COC only having jurisdiction in Olympic team standards).

Yes, but also note that Sport Canada's measurement of performance at Olympic Games and other major events doesn't have anything to do with selection standards for those events, which is the topic of this thread.