The Canadian Running Thread

rsb wrote:

And it's not at all accurate to say that we had no national funding.

That's great and all that so many things were A-OK back in the 70s and 80s, but this discussion is about today, not the past.

Reality is there is a finite amount of public taxpayer dollars for 'high performance' sport in Canada and many more sports clamouring for a piece of that pie (just look at all those new ones where we win medals in the Winter Olympics).

We know you and others don't agree that all sports are created equal. We get it. But until you can convince all those thousands of participants in road races, let alone the rest of the millions of taxpayers that your sport (distance running) is more worthy than others, it is the status quo you've got the deal with.

So, say you were this 'highly paid' bureaucrat tasked with deciding how to divvy up X amount of public funds for high performance sports, how would you do it? What criteria would you use if you didn't use some metric of top international placings?

When it comes to money going towards athletics in specific, would you be in favour of reducing or eliminating individual athlete funding if it meant full funding for teams like World Cross?

In perfect world there would be funds for all, but it would be really nice if you could answer these hypotheticals and not just post another recounting of the glory days and promise more 'later'.

You ask some excellent questions, "um, yeah", and I promise you I will try and give you my best answers as I get time. It's not going to happen minute by minute or hour by hour. As you so correctly point out, these are difficult and challenging issues, and a lot of thought and discussion should be devoted to offering solutions, not just quick and easy one-liners. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I am fine with offering my opinions, as I get time --- is that okay with you?

As for your "another recounting of the glory days", I think that is a low blow, and a completely inaccurate description of why I'm even in here, offering opinions.

I'm sure some (perhaps not you) are interested in knowing what worked back then, not only in Canada but in many other countries with a similar "bottom-up" system of distance-running development. So rather than viewing me as someone who is reliving the glory days, consider that I might just be trying to share information and knowledge and experience, give some historical context as to what we know ACTUALLY worked, and perhaps that might be part of a constructive path to the future...

For whatever reasons, you seem to want to judge me harshly, which is your prerogative of course...

Peace out,

Ron

rsb wrote:

As for your "another recounting of the glory days", I think that is a low blow, and a completely inaccurate description of why I'm even in here, offering opinions.

Take it however you wish, but the context was in asking a couple of relatively basic questions over and over again and instead of getting answers to those questions, various tangents are taken bringing up anecdotes from the past.

Those stories are great and do provide a perspective but it is frustrating when they are recounted instead of addressing the key points or questions raised. It's very difficult to further any kind of debate when one side repeatedly ignores opposing posts, as evident by why pretty much everyone on this and other threads is fed up with the Skuj character and his broken record theme.

They aren't complex dissertation level questions and no reason a simple answer couldn't be given in the same time it took to post any of the many posts you've made since they were first asked. But if you'd rather post other priorities, then that's your choice to make.

(And just so things don't get further sidetrack, it would be preferable that the questions be answered rather than responding to this particular post. If you were this 'highly paid' bureaucrat responsible for divvying up a finite amount of taxpayer dollars to dozens of high performance sports, what criteria would you use if not something based around international placings and how would you justify this criteria to the politicians who control the purse strings and the public at large who are the ones footing the bill?)

rsb wrote:

2) Fully funded National teams to all events, including most importantly in my opinion, the World Cross Country Championships. And when I say National teams, that means every Canadian distance runner that made the appropriate

IOC/IAAF standard went. No A+, or A++, or top 8 or stay home nonsense --- none, not a chance, we wouldn't have allowed it...We would have banded together and left the Association, and in fact had to threaten to do just that, on occasion.

Just how much money do you think AC has kicking around? Fully funding every team is a ridiculous expectation. A smart move by AC this year - not sending a team to worlds to come last, but funding a team to Chiba Ekiden where they were relatively competitive. This is what IMO AC needs to do more of.

FYI i think the harder national standards are compensating for being a weaker distance running country. A country like Kenya or even the US doesn't need these because 6 or 7 runners will hit the standards (sidenote: I would argue that all of these runners should make worlds before any runners from other countries with slower times, but that's another argument)therefore runners finishing in the top 3 at National are almost for sure going to have the standard and be competitive at the World this isn't the case in Canada. I haven't explained this very well, if some one else wants to give it a shot go ahead.

Also note that even with these faster standards Eric Gilis still got lapped TWICE in Beijing.

There are too many questions, assumptions, what if's, unknowns, etc. within that "question" for me to give you a solid answer. Can you narrow the field a bit for me?

I think we're getting closer,

Thanks,

Ron

rsb wrote:

There are too many questions, assumptions, what if's, unknowns, etc. within that "question" for me to give you a solid answer. Can you narrow the field a bit for me?

I think we're getting closer,

Very few, if any assumptions, what ifs and unknowns. Very straightforward questions.

You are this 'highly paid' bureaucrat who is tasked to divvy up a finite amount of taxpayer dollars between several dozen amateur sports (both winter and summer sports) for 'high performance' purposes.

What criteria would you use?

The obvious criteria would be international placings, since that is what appeals to the public at large. You apparently don't agree with that, so what is your alternative?

Keep in mind you have to be able to justify your decisions to the politicians who control the purse strings and the taxpaying public who provide the dollars, so you can't just say 'give it all to Canadian distance running because I really, really support it and gosh darn it, Canadian distance runners really, really deserve it because they ran so well thirty years ago'.

Tread carefully, my friend - you have no idea what you up against, but keep spouting if you wish, and soon enough, I will nail it...

Peace,

Ron

P.S. I assume that's your final statement/question, and posed as if you have any idea what the average taxpayer, politician, bureaucrat, sport administrator, knows about or cares about. Do I read you correctly there?

um yeah, I can understand your frustration. Rsb likes to come across as the "all-knowing" expert from the past who will impart his wisdom (when he feels like it) in the goodness of time. We all wait with anticipation for him to bless us with his words. In fact he doesn't have an answer, which is why he goes on and on... about the past. The complete arrogance of "we (meaning him) did it before, and if only they gave me back the keys to the kingdom - the bottom-up approach - we would do it again" is galling. It's a bunch of hogwash - he has NO answers, at least none that others (even at AC) don't have as well.

In fact all I've read in the past few pages is hypocrisy. This is a guy who goes on and on about the success of Triathlon athletes (Whitfield), yet chooses to ignore the fact that this sport is NO different than winter sports - it's a fringe sport for athletes who can't run, swim or cycle at an elite level, and hasn't yet transferred to the Africans, etc. which has made distance so marginal for Track athletes (i.e. the standards have improved since the days of his generation). So the OTP funding, which gives the Triathlon federation (success) its legitimacy, is also what rules the distance side of the Track equation. Until Simon W. won in 2000, there was no real legitimacy for the sport of Triathlon, just a bunch of guys (like Shepley) working hard for years (since 1988 for Barrie and others) to get it to be "mainstream". Distance hasn't had similar success, maybe ever. That Williams and Chalmers made Olympic podiums in the 3000m (no longer a championship event) 26 and 18 years ago, and Williams and Wiley in XC, is now ancient history, and was testament also to the depth that existed amongst the women in the country (for which RonB was a great contributer) at the time. Unfortunately it will take a similar development, but requires a greater performance level now, in order for this to happen again. I don't think that the NTC's are the answer to this, and so am in disgreement with AC on this element of development. But an OTP-type philosophy (if not implementation, and there are problems with this I agree) has to be developed - if only to get athletes thinking that it is possible. Guys like Drayton, Williams, Chalmers, Edge, etc. thought that they could make it to podiums - they wanted to be the best - why do it otherwise? Now it may simply be making it to finals (or top 8/16) to show competitiveness, and we're not doing that either, and therein lies the crux of AC's lack of enthusiasm for our distance athletes.

3 things:

1) The standards for nationals are getting (and need to be) tougher, and that is required to get a greater depth of athletes to a higher level. I know too many otherwise talented athletes who thought that all they needed to run was 1.54 (recent mens 800m standard) to make it to Nationals - their training and commitment reflected that attitude of mediocrity. In the '80's and early '90's, we may have had fewer athletes at the meet, but the standard and depth was better. That is the REAL bottom-up approach.

2) The standards in the CIS are generally abysmal. When women qualify for the CIS Championship by NOT running under 4.30 for 1500m and barely under 10.00 for 3000m (the men aren't much better), then why are we surprised that the depth of our distance runners is so poor. How can one see themselves running 4.06 or 15.10 (A Standard) when they are lauded and rewarded for much slower performance levels (see National standards above). Other than a few individuals and programs (DST and Guelph amongst the few NOT included in this attitude of mediocrity), I see little hope for distance being supported unless or until this changes.

3) Too much focus on HS (and College/University) being the be-all and end-all. An attitude of being the best that you can be as an athlete in the sport is what needs to be cultivated, regardless of funding (or lack thereof) from AC/Sport Canada. Does this entail sacrifice from all concerned (athlete/coach/parent) - hell yes! Too many want to see other returns (money), without having to recognize that others (Africans) are perhaps at an economic "advantage". Does this mean that distance Track is somewhat "marginalized"? Until there are successful role models, yes. Until athletes see themselves breaking now outdated National records (as Simon Bairu did recently and Gary Reed has done for a number of years now), how can one hope to compete at an International level.

Given the little amount of dollar support AC gets from Sport Canada, why shouldn't AC marginalize distance when it isn't pulling its weight (throws aren't really either, but that's another story). Chicken and egg - when distance athletes (at least ONE as a role model) get back to International prominance, then due respect will be given - I think Simon B. has this now. Look at Britain, they have struggled as well, but the success (on the women's side) of Holmes (800/1500 in 2004) and Radcliffe (Mar WR) have inspired greater depth - two podiums last year (Meadows 800/Dobriskey 1500m) and others following suit (S.Twell, H.England, etc.) - they are middle-distance focused (much like us according to AC) as it's easier to be competitive than in the distances , the standards of which are much better (5000-Marathon) than they were 20 years ago .

The bottom-up approach has to start with clubs and coaches convincing athletes of their potential, the top-down (as rsb says) from AC might sustain those who actually have the talent and commitment (and luck perhaps to stay healthy) to get to International levels - and that is A standard (even with the new carding guidelines) - and may mean altering the approach to the sport ( i.e. school competitions) to be a part of the overall process to get our athletes ready earlier, and with International competition in mind, and not being bogged down with the be-all and end-all mindset. In many respects that is the big advantage of "African" dominance is that they don't get sidetracked by "school" demands, which likely don't help them to run faster.

rsb wrote:

Tread carefully, my friend - you have no idea what you up against, but keep spouting if you wish, and soon enough, I will nail it...

Well I'm sure I can speak for many others in that we look forward to simple questions finally being answered. I truly fail to see though what is so difficult about them or could possibly be lurking in the shadows that should cause me to tread carefully. The questions are simply a matter of opinions on policy and its implementation.

P.S. I assume that's your final statement/question, and posed as if you have any idea what the average taxpayer, politician, bureaucrat, sport administrator, knows about or cares about. Do I read you correctly there?

As if I know what the average taxpayer, etc knows or cares about? I'm not claiming I do beyond the fact I happen to be a taxpayer (but none of the other things).

Whatever answer you choose to give to that question, feel free to use your own interpretation of what you think that average taxpayer and politician responsible to the average taxpayer might know or care about. Many would say those people don't know or care about much except they want to see returns on their investment and therefore that is something that would have to be taken into account when deciding how you are going to allocate those limited funds.

Ultimately it really isn't a difficult question. You obviously have very strong feelings about OTP (negative) and so presumably have thought about it extensively. One would therefore assume that you have thought of alternatives since you so publicly decry OTP policies. I'm just asking you to share those alternatives.

Wow ! This Board seems to be exploding with animosity towards me. Oh, well...

At least those who are taking the shots, are man enough to reveal their identity, and not speak from the cowardly anonymity of their keyboards...or not. I really don't want this to turn into a personal attack thread, but someone(s) are making that difficult. I will take a few deep breaths, and try and answer all the questions and issues. I'll just try and read back and pick off the points as I understand them...

1) Yes, I do have very strong feelings about the OTP plan. Here are some of the reasons why...OTP is a very lame-ass excuse for a National Sport Program. As I tried to make clear in numerous posts, and I'll try once again, the OTP is an extremely crude measuring tool for a National Sport Program. It encourages athletes to gravitate to the least point of resistance, and find a sport or event where the World Wide competition is the weakest, and then get funding for winning a Medal, when only 17 people in the World give a shit about that activity. What sort of Program is that? What new sport can we invent before the next Winter Olympics, where we can invent and perfect the technique, and beat a few first-world, white guys, and OTP? That's why I hate OTP with a passion --- it is so lame, and so weak, and so artificial that is almost defies description for anyone with a brain, or any knowledge about the World Wide Picture of Sport. That's why I much prefer a broad-based, bottom up approach to Sport in Canada, which encourages and supports all kids in Canada to be more active and fit, and try harder, and find their own niche, and be encouraged to continue in sport, even if they aren't within sight of the Podium. Should we discourage little boys from playing soccer, because our Men's Team is 61st in the World?

2) Whitfield is my friend and one of my heroes, and he and I have shared many a laugh about what would happen if the Africans had access to Triathlon, so there is no hypocrisy at all. When Whitfield won the Olympic Gold in 2000, it was a new sport, and yes, a hybrid sport, agreed. But Simon took it very seriously, was brilliantly talented, dedicated himself totally to being the best in the World, and that was long before OTP. He did it from a bottom-up approach. Now, of course, he is a full time athlete, and trains at least 3 times a day, and is a great citizen and role model for Canadian kids, and again that didn't come from OTP - it came from Simon Whitfield. And I do believe that Simon could have been a very elite runner, if he wasn't a triathlete.

3) I don't think there is an average taxpayer. And if there was, he/she wouldn't really care much about "amateur sport", and the tiny percentage of their taxes that go to support that in Canada. Of course, everyone likes to see medals won by Canadians, no doubt about that. But if someone really explained that the same money, if applied intelligently, could raise the activity and fitness level of thousands of our youth, give them motivation to continue with sport, make a significant difference in our health care costs, etc., etc., etc., I don't agree they would vote for the odd medal, over the greater good. I would be surprised if they did.

4) Of course, taxpayers are voters. Does any politician ever run on a platform that includes winning more medals for Canada, at such and such a cost? If so, would it make any difference in their election results? The obvious answer is no !

5) So then, after a certain political party is voted in, and some Minister is chosen to be the Minister of Sport or whatever, do you think that politician is making a decision to support enormous funding for a select few, as compared to increased funding for the many? I doubt it.

6) So now we are down to the bureaucrat. And they make decisions on the future of Canadian sport (and distance running) based on what knowledge and experience? Have they any kind of hard information on what the several layers above them (Taxpayer, Government, Minister) want them to do, or do they just have to go and sell their personal agenda to someone. I would suggest the latter. And I would suggest it has much more to do with keeping their job, than what might be better for Canadians as a whole. Agree or not?

7) So far, I have found no compelling evidence at any layer of this mess, that anyone really cares about Owning the Podium, or would change any vote, or any level of support depending on whether someone has a better shot at a medal, because the competition is lighter. What have I missed?

I've lost the train of thought, and I have to pee.

I'll be back.

R.

pre32 wrote: Also note that even with these faster standards Eric Gilis still got lapped TWICE in Beijing.

That's a bit of a cheap shot. Gillis was selected (after a loud outcry here and on TNFnorth) as a "rising star," and had a bad day, underperforming relative to his actual ability. Everyone can have a bad day. In his case, a good day would have put him maybe close to the middle of the field. But he didn't have a good day.

Sorry about that, "Nature" seems to call more frequently at my age :)

I agree that is really a cheap shot at a great guy and athlete such as Eric Gillis. Unfortunately, the lowest common denominator is never far away on LetsRun. I think the anonymity really contributes to that, and we would have for more focussed and interesting discussions if we could just talk about the sport, and not each other...

Anyways,

If I was capable of being hurt anymore, I would feel hurt by some of Captain Kangaroo's comments.

I do not consider myself any kind of "all-knowing expert", never have, never will. I think I was fortunate to be in the right place and the right time, and I think it was truly a total team effort in the 1980's, and thus the "we". There were a lot of great coaches in great clubs, and we managed to get great support from various Provincial and National administrations, and we moved forward. That is all I am trying to share, and I think the principles we need to get back to, haven't changed at all.

Do you really think DST and Speed River are doing things much diffently than the many great Clubs/Centres in the 1980's? If so, what? Please enlighten me...

It's back to the future, that's my point. What worked then, can work again, and we have gotten away from basic principles, not blaming anyone for that - it just happened...And I think distance running, at all levels, is totally worthy of support from Governments and Individuals and Corporations and Media and the citizens of Canada, whether we win a medal or not. It's a great activity, with more "spin-off" benefits to the greater fabric of Canada than almost any other activity you can name. That is one of the reasons we have so many hundreds of thousands, or millions of Canadians who take part in the sport of distance running, because it is worth doing, in so many ways.

I don't like OTP, don't like a single NTC, don't like that there is no HP plan for events longer than 1500 m. in Canada, don't like that we now just a nation of sprinters and throwers, don't like that the value of sport is now reduced to Medal Chances, don't think that AC is in a viable position to be an effective sport governing body for distance running in Canada (because of the various restrictions placed on their funding from Sport Canada) and thus their priorities.... I do think there should be a separate autonomous Association or Society or whatever for the support and growth of Canadian Distance Running, for all ages, and levels of ability. That's enough for tonight.

R.

Typical pre32 cheap shot.

some dude wrote:

pre32 wrote: Also note that even with these faster standards Eric Gilis still got lapped TWICE in Beijing.

That's a bit of a cheap shot. Gillis was selected (after a loud outcry here and on TNFnorth) as a "rising star," and had a bad day, underperforming relative to his actual ability. Everyone can have a bad day. In his case, a good day would have put him maybe close to the middle of the field. But he didn't have a good day.

captain kangaroo bystander wrote:

Typical pre32 cheap shot.

some dude wrote:

That's a bit of a cheap shot. Gillis was selected (after a loud outcry here and on TNFnorth) as a "rising star," and had a bad day, underperforming relative to his actual ability. Everyone can have a bad day. In his case, a good day would have put him maybe close to the middle of the field. But he didn't have a good day.

It was a bit of a cheap shot yea. I apologize for that, I shouldn't have dropped a name like that. No disrespect meant, just pointing out that the harder standards aren't really making a huge difference.

imafarmer wrote:

http://www.athletics.ca/files///STRATEGICPLANOVERVIEW.PDF

Canadian athletes consistently meet and exceed performance goals at major international events.

Canadian athletes are among the finalists in all events, and the Canadian flag is raised during many medal

presentations at the world championships, the Olympic and other major games.

This hardly sounds like AC is abandoning events longer than 1500m.

Thank you for finally addressing the questions.

I would think there is a difference between not encouraging (not funding specific athletes) and actively 'discouraging'. No one is telling little boys NOT to play soccer and in fact, little boys are playing soccer in ever increasing numbers. Similarly no one is telling older boys and girls NOT to run track or distance.

Fair enough answer, although one would point to the many newspaper reports in the first week of the Olympics bemoaning all the OTP funding and the resulting lack of medals. This did a 180 in the second week when the tally started rapidly climbing. Seems to give the impression that the average media reader cared that their tax dollars were being put towards something that would be easily visible to be successful.

Those are two separate goals. I agree with you that the $1.1 million going to 66 or more able bodied Canadian track and field athletes would have a better return on investment if it were spent on programs to get little kids active in their daily lives.

However people are also willing to see a portion of their public money put towards pursuing nationalistic goals like winning medals. Just as one chooses to spend some dollars at the pub even though that money could have a bigger financial impact paying off your mortgage or investing in your RSP. Two different goals.

If the answer is so obvious, why are politicians clamouring to be seen when funding announcements are made such as for athlete programs like OTP or construction of fancy facilities that would cater to elite athletes? Do you think Harper didn't play off the fact Canada was winning all these medals at our own Olympics? Do you think any BC politician would have done better in pre-Olympic elections had they campaigned on REDUCING provincial spending on Olympic facilities or programs?

But we're back to metrics. How do you measure how well a minister or senior bureaucrat is doing if you don't count some sort of numbers? Spending money on elite athletes allows them to point to how many Canadian athletes they supported and helped win Olympic medals. Photo ops, congratulatory press releases and glowing self-evaluations of how good a job they did because of X number of winners under their watch.

In an era of Olympic fever, it's a lot harder to point to increased numbers of 10 year olds playing soccer when we remain the only country not to win a gold at our own Olympics.

Sure, as mentioned above, they need to have metrics for how well they do their job. Not saying they are good metrics or even appropriate metrics, but when you've got to decide how much of the pie to give to Athletics vs Snowboarding vs Swimming vs Skeleton does it look better for their performance if they put money towards someone who finishes 20th on the track or someone who picked up a gold in some obscure ice-based event?

Back to those articles from the first week of the Olympics, wasn't the main complaint that we've 'wasted' all this money on elite athletes and they weren't coming through with podium finishes?

As mentioned just above, I'd say you missed the media storm of the first week of the Olympics. That's usually a pretty good barometer of what the 'average' taxpayer feels (and hence what drives that 'highly paid' bureaucrat and their political bosses).

Skuj wrote:

On a personal note, I was the luckiest 31min 10k runner in the world: I went to 11 World Military XC Champs. (We actually got paid when we were there. Oh how good we had it, compared to our 29min counterparts in the civilian world.)

Our teams usually didn't do so well....near the back of the pack a lot of times, but sometimes, near the middle of the pack. I guess we should have just given up though, because we weren't owning the podium.

The dream of making a team drove many many people within the CF. I saw first hand what this opportunity did/created.

I gotta go hahaha.....I was going somewhere with his.....maybe much later.

Interesting thread. Maybe instead of lamenting the lack of funding for athletes, the anger should be directed towards areas of waste like that mentioned above. The CF paid for back-of-the-pack runners to travel to these meets and paid them for their time there? This is just the tip of the iceber with the CF. Waste is rampant. Taxpayers should be furious. Those funds would be much better spent on our real athletes. Where's the uproar?

The first part of this paragraph is the argument you would need to make to the public at large, not a bunch of no-names on a message board.

As for the argument that supporting Olympians or potential Olympians is what has and will drive the thousands who do Sun Run and the like, I'd say that's a real stretch. The bulk of those people are completers or participants, not serious competitors. The vast majority don't know the front runners and don't really care. There is no affect on their participation whether or not Canada funds some mid-pack international distance runner.

We've been over this enough and it's been pretty well proven otherwise. It doesn't help your case to simply harp on a single quote (which can be interpreted significantly differently when you look at the rest of what he said that was posted previously in this thread).

Again, that's not true and you know it so please stop carrying on that theme. Aside from the fact that more Canadian distance runners than sprinters/throwers got high performance carding in 2010 on a per event basis, there are the numerous lower level programs and fundings, some private, some public.

So you honestly think it is viable to form some alternative distance-specific organization that will be able to gain recognition from the government departments that sanction, authorize and fund amateur sport governing bodies in Canada, from the IAAF (despite the fact no other country has such a model), from the member clubs who have athletes on both sides of your dividing line and from the handful of national sponsors (RBC, CBC, etc)?

If you do honestly believe that is possible and practical, great, more power to you. But otherwise it is a pointless gesture when the effort could be put more effectively to other pursuits (like getting a bunch of good runners together, get a good coach, getting some private funding and running like hell so it doesn't really matter what standards are set, they will be easily met).