Emily Pidgeon out of World Juniors?

As examples to look at I mentioned Kenyans, and Ethiopians... ...for a reason they are World class...

It may surprise you to find out that Sarah Hopkinson, and Emily Pidgeon are not World class... ...at least not yet

Maybe an attempt for a structured approach should be considered...

I think that might be part of the problem. There appears to be a movement towards keeping the training of Hopkinson and Pidgeon a secret. I dont see this sort of behaviour elsewhere in the country.

Go to L/boro and the training is (well was anyway) written on the wall. Baldaro lets anybody join in his sessions at Birmingham. There are quite large training groups at St Marys and anybody seems to be welcome, either Australian, Kiwi, Kenyan, British American or Irish.

So why do some coaches think their training is so much better than other groups that it has to be kept secret ?

Could you explain what you mean please.

Pidgin english wrote:

Could you explain what you mean please.

A coordinated effort to collect, AND to make information available about training, from coaches like:

Percy Cerutty, Renato Canova, Jack Daniels, Frank Horwill, Vin Lananna, Arthur Lydiard, Harry Wilson, Bruce Tulloh, etc. etc.

So athletes would have a chance to see various training programs used by successful athletes...

Also, a database with training related research would be very useful.

I think you will find that somebody is already doing just that, to be available online.

I would have hoped that any endurance coach trying to improve their coaching knowledge would have read publications by most of those you mention. However I think it is just as important that the coaches who have produced the most successful British athletes have an input. I dont think that this happens enough. Last year at Stratford L Dunn spoke and I hope that we get the chance to listen to other excellent coaches in the not too distant future.

Perhaps David Farrow will give a presentation ?

"An expectation of selection is that all team members travel with, and are part of, the team preparation process." - Dave Collins

So when does an expectation become a neceassity? Furthermore, is this not simply an extension of the athletes' contract which is in essence an employment contract (but not called that in order to not be subject to emplyoment law)?

And finally, not all GB athletes have signed the contract, although you can understand that I'm reluctant to name names.

I also believe that not all athletes have yet signed the contract, but I think that they will - except Pidgeon.

Not many of the junior team will have been asked to sign contracts, so the use of the words 'expectation of selection' is probably the right one.

Contract or no contract, if an athlete has a better plan than the group then I think that UKA should consider it. I hope they did in this case. If they did and rejected it for sound reasons then they (UKA) have done their job. If Farrow/Pidgeon Senior have just rebelled against UKA as a matter of principle then they are clearly at fault. Will we ever know the truth ?

I think your comments about ' employment contracts' aren't quite accurate - either something is at law an employment contract or it isn't. UKS/ SE Lottery folk took great pains to ensure that the funding agreements between funder - NGB - athlete didn't amount to employment contracts. When challenged on this by a cyclist who'd been dropped from funding, the cyclist lost. Funded athletes receive, from their NGB, a bunch of services, cash, support etc to fund them to contribute to that NGB's high performance targets, but that doesn't make them employees (I simplify here of course).

Coach Ed in UK (endurance modules)- OK it has plenty of elements that are not going to endear themselves to people (who here has done the multiple choice child protection test, and how did you rate it?!) but many of the endurance elements are designed and delivered by someone who does a lot of similar work for the IAAF. With online access, none of us should need to rely on UKA to bring us up to speed on how elite enduros train in Kenya, Ethiopia, japan or, dare I say it, Spain - we can all dig it up for ourselves or by developing our own networks of mentors etc....And even with this cutting edge info, we still have to make an individual call on how, if it all, we can apply it in our own coaching situs - a Kenyan guy who spent his youth running to school and shifting stuff around his family farm, and who now sleeps 12-13 hours per 24 to further his running, presents a v different specimen/capability/ environment to at least 99% of UK distance runners.

Linked to this, as someone mentioned on another thread, Canova aside, we probably err on equating leading endurance coaches who had English as their 1st language as being the same pool of people as leading endurance coaches period - when the latter is a much bigger and probably more diverse pool.

The future of pidgeon debate is a bit academic. The young lady is getting hips and boobs and in another 12 months will be the wrong shape for distance running anyway. I'm willing to wager she never makes a mark as senior thanks to nature. The sad thing is her best shot in a global championship has been this year's 2 world juniors and she has been denied the high point of her career by her 'advisers'.

Pidgin english wrote:

I also believe that not all athletes have yet signed the contract, but I think that they will - except Pidgeon.

Not many of the junior team will have been asked to sign contracts, so the use of the words \'expectation of selection\' is probably the right one.

Contract or no contract, if an athlete has a better plan than the group then I think that UKA should consider it. I hope they did in this case. If they did and rejected it for sound reasons then they (UKA) have done their job. If Farrow/Pidgeon Senior have just rebelled against UKA as a matter of principle then they are clearly at fault. Will we ever know the truth ?

With enough obfuscation, ignorance, and coercion... ...just about all probably will sign the contract... ...because UKA can put up quite a few road blocks for their career, if they do not sign... in other words: SIGN or ELSE!!!!

Aah, they are given an offer they cannot refuse.

UKA - an organisation in my taste.

Best wishes

Don Corleone

Don corleone stole my name from UA.

What road blocks ?

Radcliffe clearly hasnt signed. Unless Gary Lough is posting on here, then nobody on this site knows exactly why. I think that Paula will sign because there is no downside to signing. If at any time you dont like the arrangement then you are able to opt out. So why not sign and see how it goes. I think that there are up to a max of 5 others who havnt signed yet, but at least one of those is abroad and is proving slow to deal with paper work.

If anybody on this site knows of any athlete who was coerced in to signing then please let us know.

UK Sport requires the contract to be signed before Lottery Funding is paid, as in other sports.

What is the problem ?

Pidgin english wrote:

What road blocks ?

Radcliffe clearly hasnt signed. Unless Gary Lough is posting on here, then nobody on this site knows exactly why. I think that Paula will sign because there is no downside to signing. If at any time you dont like the arrangement then you are able to opt out. So why not sign and see how it goes. I think that there are up to a max of 5 others who havnt signed yet, but at least one of those is abroad and is proving slow to deal with paper work.

If anybody on this site knows of any athlete who was coerced in to signing then please let us know.

UK Sport requires the contract to be signed before Lottery Funding is paid, as in other sports.

What is the problem ?

So, you are saying it is only about funding, correct?

There are no competitions, or other events of ANY sort that the athlete would be prevented from participating in?

If this is the case why push so hard to have everybody sign?

Apart from the "minor" detail that athletes who sign then have a number of obligations... ...that gives UKA not insignificant powers...

What was it that Lord Acton said in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton again... ...oh yes... Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

People with little power tends to want more, and more... ...seemingly striving towards the absolute version...

I would be happy really go in to the details of the contract, so we can explain what it means, and with your help it will probably be a most enlightening excercise...

Please come back to planet earth.

Where did I say it was only about funding ?

Of course there are other obligations, but I do not believe that they are so onerous that athletes cant sign, or cant live with the consequences if they sign. If they are too much then the athlete has the option to end the contract at any time.

You can go in to the contract as much as you like, I dont care a toss. It is only a problem to those who want it to be a problem.

Lets wait and see how it is implemented, and how much of a problem it is to athletes. Then we can go through the contract with a fine toothcomb if you want. Till then you are shouting before you are hurt.

Pidgin english wrote:

Please come back to planet earth.

Where did I say it was only about funding ?

Of course there are other obligations, but I do not believe that they are so onerous that athletes cant sign, or cant live with the consequences if they sign. If they are too much then the athlete has the option to end the contract at any time.

You can go in to the contract as much as you like, I dont care a toss. It is only a problem to those who want it to be a problem.

Lets wait and see how it is implemented, and how much of a problem it is to athletes. Then we can go through the contract with a fine toothcomb if you want. Till then you are shouting before you are hurt.

So, you "do not believe that they are so onerous that athletes cant sign, or cant live with the consequences if they sign."

How kind of you to make that judgement for the athletes...

Seems that UKA's recommends that UK athletes should read, OR worry about what contracts they sign... ...because it will probably work out just fine with the friendly people who wrote the contract...

Or as someone said... "Please come back to planet earth."

In the real world, not the one inhabited by UKA officials, things work differently... ...after a contract is signed, it is used to settle disputes... ...and as even a pretty lousy lawyer knows, it is what is written in the contract that matters, and it is very unwise to find out if it will be used as a bat, to the full extent that the law allows... It is also worthwhile to mention that contract law is almost sacred in the common law tradition...

Pidgin english's argument for the UKA's contract boils down to; TRUST US, TRUST US, don't read the contract, don't worry, be happy, we're honest, HONEST.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like duck, it probably is a DUCK.

The arguments used by Pidgin english are one's commonly used by scoundrels. If as Pidgin english fervently there is nothing to hide why act like there are things to hide? And why such a long contract, if not to cover details, that can only make a lawyer happy in a potential dispute (and I am not talking about the athlete's lawyer)?

Pidgin english does not really make UKA look very good. A lot of attacks, but very few answers.

Having started this thread, it has been really interesting to watch it develop, although I'm not sure it has been that instructive.

I have no vested interest in UKA or the Pidgeon camp, but as the father of kids who run and want to be competitive, I am watching developments with interest as I imagine they may have a great deal of effect in determining how things will be done 5 years hence.

The UKA contract still stinks of power and control to my mind. It seems to me (as a bystander) that the need of a "light" contract for funding is being manipulated to take as much control over the athletes as possible. With the loss of funding acting like a gun to the head, there is little choice for the wannabe full-time athlete. I may be totally wrong, but that is just how it seems.

I despise nannyism. And I think the athletes should have as much control over their own destiny as possible. Sure, there may be a need for pre-event camps, but making things compulsory "or else" is a worrying trend. An athlete should be responsible for their own training and preparation - the governing body can select them or not on the basis of how successful the athlete is in their training as measured by their results, but to get involved further is intrusive and beyond their bounds, IMHO.

And for children under 18, the parents NOT (definitely not) UKA should have the authority. ALL authority. My kids are MY responsibility, in running as in everything else, not UKA's.

Which leads nicely on to the issue that, as one poster has suggested, may have started all the squabbling off - the UKA age limits. To have such strict blanket bans on competition in distance running is, in my view, unwarranted. Without getting into a totally separate debate (if someone wants to, start a new thread and link here), I can understand the frustrations of the Pidgeon camp here. Just to say, that as I read the accusations of "too much training" and "secretism" plastered here, I wondered if it was a case of 2+2=4 - i.e. the concept of higher mileage being bad is so engrained in athletics in the UK that they keep their mouths shut about what they do to avoid the criticism that would come. Perhaps that explains some of the "distance" from the fold and the "prickliness" that people sense.

That said, a lot of what has been posted about the Pidgeon camp so far seems to be along the lines of much of the classic LR drug accusations - confident declarations with no substance to back them up.

Does nobody have any genuine insight into their training at all???