sdcss wrote:
Simply complaining online isn't going to do anything.
Ah, now I see. You think the only thing currently happening is a few forum posts. Your assumption is decidedly incorrect.
sdcss wrote:
Simply complaining online isn't going to do anything.
Ah, now I see. You think the only thing currently happening is a few forum posts. Your assumption is decidedly incorrect.
Prodak wrote:
Give money to Natasha Wodak and she will metal in Rio.
She doesn't live in Ontario. BC can give her the money.
Prodak wrote:
Give money to Natasha Wodak and she will metal in Rio.
Wodak - 2004 -age 23 - 7 Simon Fraser - 3000 - 10:05.41
spurgeon wrote:
sdcss wrote:Simply complaining online isn't going to do anything.
Ah, now I see. You think the only thing currently happening is a few forum posts. Your assumption is decidedly incorrect.
No, I know there have been appeals, and I know there have been requests for information, but not sure there has been any actual "enforcement" or attempts to actually back up claims of fraud and corruption.
Why did Athletics Ontario (old name) suddenly change their name? Coincidence? Talk about lack of accountability.
scsdfsdf wrote:
spurgeon wrote:Ah, now I see. You think the only thing currently happening is a few forum posts. Your assumption is decidedly incorrect.
No, I know there have been appeals, and I know there have been requests for information, but not sure there has been any actual "enforcement" or attempts to actually back up claims of fraud and corruption.
Well, since you are so interested and perhaps willing to help out, you could contact Steve Boyd to learn more. Or you could contact Athletics Ontario and take action there.
Not everything that everyone is doing is being broadcast on the message boards.
scsdfsdf wrote:
spurgeon wrote:Ah, now I see. You think the only thing currently happening is a few forum posts. Your assumption is decidedly incorrect.
No, I know there have been appeals, and I know there have been requests for information, but not sure there has been any actual "enforcement" or attempts to actually back up claims of fraud and corruption.
Wouldn't a request for information of an allegedly fraudulent document be an attempt to back up claims of fraud?
;lkjoi wrote:
scsdfsdf wrote:No, I know there have been appeals, and I know there have been requests for information, but not sure there has been any actual "enforcement" or attempts to actually back up claims of fraud and corruption.
Well, since you are so interested and perhaps willing to help out, you could contact Steve Boyd to learn more. Or you could contact Athletics Ontario and take action there.
Not everything that everyone is doing is being broadcast on the message boards.
Correct. It didn't begin and it will not end with discussion on public fora, as important as these kinds of airings actually are.
I find that people complaining that this is being discussed in public fora instead of pursued through "official/legal" channels, or who think we're all just wasting our time talking about the thing publicly, really just wish it weren't being talked about at all. They just don't know how to say this without revealing that they either don't think any of it is a big deal (even if the worst is true), or that they agree with the outcome regardless of the means.
Since there would appear to be absolutely NO defense against the case that there were serious irregularities here, defenders of either the board or SR have had to resort to anonymous name calling (e.g. we're all trolls and haters who don't actually want to improve anything but just want to make people look bad in public, likely because we're all jealous losers, etc.).
Part of making things better involves bringing people to account and raising the costs for anyone who might try similarly unethical crap in the future. This and other fora have lately done an excellent job in this respect (think: Kip Litton and Mike Rossi). In the past, it was done in local media. Now it is a DIY/crowd-sourced affair. This may not be perfect (e.g. it does create openings for actual "haters"); but, it's an awful lot better than back-channel discussions between select cognoscenti, which only leads to gossip and cynicism. Those of us who are old enough remember how that used to work.
My issue with the online chatter is that it dilutes the real issues. SR gets blamed for every evil in Canadian running right now, various SR athletes get people suggesting they are dopers, or sandbaggers, or over the hill - this is not productive at all.
When the actual issues get mired in all the other crap, it makes one less likely to take the real issues seriously.
Additionally, by beating the same drum over and over again, and preaching to the choir (however small or large that group is), it takes the feel of a personal white whale.
It is just my opinion, but once the issues have been made public, it isn't helping the cause to keep hammering on them without new information.
I get that it is frustrating to believe that there is something rotten here, but be unable to stop it, but while the Steves are keeping things honest, their "helpers" are causing more harm than good.
scsdfsdf wrote:
My issue with the online chatter is that it dilutes the real issues. SR gets blamed for every evil in Canadian running right now, various SR athletes get people suggesting they are dopers, or sandbaggers, or over the hill - this is not productive at all.
When the actual issues get mired in all the other crap, it makes one less likely to take the real issues seriously.
Additionally, by beating the same drum over and over again, and preaching to the choir (however small or large that group is), it takes the feel of a personal white whale.
It is just my opinion, but once the issues have been made public, it isn't helping the cause to keep hammering on them without new information.
I get that it is frustrating to believe that there is something rotten here, but be unable to stop it, but while the Steves are keeping things honest, their "helpers" are causing more harm than good.
Again, it's not perfect. On balance, however, I'd prefer to have people publicly discussing this stuff than not. Compare the possible damage if no one discussed it versus the possible peeve to an observer such as yourself that it has perhaps been over or poorly discussed at times.
As a complete aside (but more in keeping with the long forgotten subject of this thread), I found it very odd that, when asked about his greatest regret, DST would have referred not to something that HE himself said or did, but to something that was done to HIM (i.e. via his athletes). "Regret", after all, generally refers to things you wish you had or hadn't done. You generally don't "regret" things OTHER people do, whether to you or not. You might wish they hadn't done them, or you might even deplore them, but it wouldn't make sense to say you "regretted" them. You can't really regret something you had no control over, such as other people's behaviour. It just seemed like a very odd way to answer that question, like maybe he didn't quite get the concept of "regret" (and he is anything but a stupid man).
fred wrote:
Prodak wrote:Give money to Natasha Wodak and she will metal in Rio.
She doesn't live in Ontario. BC can give her the money.
Yea, give money to natasha wodok so she can spend it on more booze. she has a busted leg. no shot at rio.
phat chance wrote:
fred wrote:She doesn't live in Ontario. BC can give her the money.
Yea, give money to natasha wodok so she can spend it on more booze. she has a busted leg. no shot at rio.
Hi Josh!
Sorry, but Natasha is back with a vengeance and she will prove you wrong.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BD1qoVuKtgC/?taken-by=tasha_wodakprosay wrote:
phat chance wrote:Yea, give money to natasha wodok so she can spend it on more booze. she has a busted leg. no shot at rio.
Hi Josh!
Sorry, but Natasha is back with a vengeance and she will prove you wrong.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BD1qoVuKtgC/?taken-by=tasha_wodak
Well, this is the actual Josh. I'm well aware that Natasha is running... you should know that! God knows I hear about it often enough!
fyi - I'm here for the SR carding issue as it is important regarding the integrity of the sport in Canada. I couldn't care any less about all of the other sideshows in this thread or the one on trackie.
Hang around the sport long enough and you'll understand Boyd knows how to debate a point. He also wouldn't be one to just "let this one slide".
Tash is stinking fit and ready for a Brazilian fer sure.
The Actual Josh wrote:
fyi - I'm here for the SR carding issue as it is important regarding the integrity of the sport in Canada. I couldn't care any less about all of the other sideshows in this thread or the one on trackie.
Hang around the sport long enough and you'll understand Boyd knows how to debate a point. He also wouldn't be one to just "let this one slide".
Same, I'm here to find out more about this carding issue. I hope they don't 'let this one slide'!
AO meeting minutes 23 May 2015 show a carried motion of making champs attendance mandatory unless conflicting with a National Team event or NCAA comp. In the end QFG criteria did not make AO champs attendance mandatory. Why? Could be equal opportunity legal issues were raised. What about athletes from Thunder Bay who could spend $1000 to get to and from the event? Equal opportunity? No some people have to spend far more than others to attend the champs and this is done for the same carding funds.
What then? Perhaps they backed down - but not really. Created a de facto point scale that in essence skewed participation in champs being required to have a chance at getting carded.
Personal white whale wrote:
AO meeting minutes 23 May 2015 show a carried motion of making champs attendance mandatory unless conflicting with a National Team event or NCAA comp. In the end QFG criteria did not make AO champs attendance mandatory. Why? Could be equal opportunity legal issues were raised. What about athletes from Thunder Bay who could spend $1000 to get to and from the event? Equal opportunity? No some people have to spend far more than others to attend the champs and this is done for the same carding funds.
What then? Perhaps they backed down - but not really. Created a de facto point scale that in essence skewed participation in champs being required to have a chance at getting carded.
Sounds right. An earlier post made it abundantly clear that placing well at AO Champs was basically required for carding, unless you crush a World Record in which case you'd most likely receive National carding.
No surprise the speed river guys stopped posting, it's pretty clear this whole thing is shade as a firetruck.
fred wrote:
Prodak wrote:Give money to Natasha Wodak and she will metal in Rio.
Wodak - 2004 -age 23 - 7 Simon Fraser - 3000 - 10:05.41
Who is this Fred fellow and why is he posting some random result from 12 years ago for Wodak but not for Proudfoot? These threads really bring out the pathetic wackos.
You lot are as queer as a $3 bill.
who the flying fart gives a rats arse about AO? Did joining AO make you run better or faster???
NO so just go run if running is what you love.
On the other hand if politics is your thing then you came to the right place or if you prefer to just talk about running instead of actually running then again you are in the right spot.
Maybe one of you can take the leadership of the NDP?