First Koko, now Jessica Hull leaves UAC

Hahaha no thanks

I think that last sentence is a little strong. Yes there have been problems -Brazier staying healthy, etc. but part of this is the reliance on coaching when athletes should be trained to understand and chart their own development. Too much is in the hands of the coach, such that athletes are not in a position to control things themselves. The role of the coach needs to become advisory, rather than day-to-day, helping to co-ordinate rather than control. Athletes that are too dependent is not a good thing. Yet that is the predominant scenario in the US. For HS and College I get it - institutions need to have someone take responsibility for a program, and at that level athletes generally do not have the knowledge and experience to do otherwise. But I think it can be detrimental in a post-collegiate setting. Lots of knowledge can be, and should be, gained online or from others these days.

The Ingebrigtsens, leaving their coach (and parent) is a good thing as they are now dependent on themselves to further their careers. Shoe contracts are given to the athlete, but tied too much to a specific coaching situation (UA, NOP, BTC etc. for NIke for example), which can be very restricting and all three of the main coaches have been shown to be less than stellar for different reasons.

I know of an athlete (sub-13min 5000) who has never been to altitude to train, Why? Coach doesn't believe in it!! Find a different coach or training situation - but that isn't part of the deal, but should be IMO. The athlete only has their own career, coaches can ruin athletes then move on to other athletes. This isn't an anti-coach rant either (am a coach myself), rather looking to change the relationship of the coach/athlete paradigm, which is too often one-sided. Now of course some athletes WANT to give complete power over to the coach, perhaps because they lack knowledge and wisdom about their training. That is fine to a limited degree, but also shows a weakness of resolve.

This is the most unanimous post ever on letsrun.com

Yep!

One thing people don't understand is that Nike international athletes in the U.S. don't get paid as much as U.S. athletes. Jess will be way more marketable and make a lot more money back home in Australia.

There are pros and cons to the current way coach-athlete setups are structured in track & field, and I understand why lots of athletes would prefer the flexibility and freedom the current system offers them.

But isn't it a little ridiculous how groups are working in the sport right now? Like, UAC was formed from the fallout of a former group, assumedly under some handshake agreement that everyone wanted to train together.... yet they continue to hemorrhage talent with absolutely no recourse. Like, what was the point for Nike to support getting this group off the ground if they have no way to keep the team together? No wonder Nike is pulling support from the sport as a whole. At least in the NFL and NBA athletes are contractually obliged to remain with a team. If they wanna bail or go somewhere else, then teams have recourse. In track, the athlete just texts the coach "I'm out" and that's it. Or, for Muir, just book the next plane ride home.

This is not to say I don't believe Hull when she says she'd prefer to be in Australia, or Muir when she says she doesn't like her coach setup anymore, etc. But it just doesn't make sense for groups/sponsors to have little to no control over their athletes' allegiances. Especially in the middle of a season.

Its never a good comparison when using pro teams, like the NFL, MLB and NBA. These are closed leagues with owner, unions, CBAs, etc. T&F athletes have none of that. Additionally, they barely have any power as is, limited money-making opportunities. They want to add a sponsor to their kit? No can do. So now it seems like you want to take away their freedom to train with who they want? If it is not working, tough luck?

Does a contract with a shoe compony come tied with a coach/training situation? (I am honestly asking).

As many have said, the whole sport needs a wholesale restructuring. While the shoe companies are the financial bread and butter of the sport, they have too much power.

It seems early on in a contract (or the first contract), the shoe company might have pull in putting together a athlete-coach/team match. By the time the athlete is established, though, they can pretty much call the shots. Note that this is more true for Western athletes. The Ethiopian Federation, for instance, seems to have a ton of pull with their athletes alongside the shoe companies. The USATF obviously has basically no pull so this all varies by country. At this stage, you can kind of tell which teams are more stable (Team Boss, OAC, New Balance Boston, Mike Smith) and which seem to have more turnover (UAC, Bowerman, Verde TC, NAZ Elite).

She finished 5th in 4:31 at today's road mile championships, so retirement is apparently treating her well

Just not a good analogy, at all. These are training groups - not NFL or NBA teams. A better comparison would be when a group of NBA players are all working out and playing pickup in the summer in LA with a trainer and one guy bails. No one bats an eye in that situation.

Nick Willis mentioned her on some Very Nice Track Club Youtube video. I think that was after she had left the group. Might have been around December. Apparently she was still doing some training in Michigan.

I saw that, too. First race in a year.

Osika was wearing this years Nike pro kit, means she's still active. Most likely went back to her old coach.

She's in the slide number 3 photo:

Hull leaves union athletics club, now is 5th all-time in the 1500m and world record holder in 2000m.

Absolutely nothing suspicious about that. Hull is lily-white from a white, western country and could never ever cheat. /s