My point is that even if they do not become late bloomers the sport will die if it becomes hyper elitist and thus they should go.
The sport has forgotten about the pyramid effect. When I was competing, and their was public money, it was all about grassroots. Now the tail wags the dog.
The brits have unlimited resources to support the leeching lifestyles of the so-called "royals." The brits spend zero on dentistry. The brits, even though they are a third world shthole, should have enough to send their athletes. All they need to do is defund the "royals" the way they have dentists.
Please stop. Dentists are both private and national health service (NHS). The lack of NHS provision in general is the result of successive decades of policies and market deregulation aimed at creating wealth for a very small minority etc etc. The royals actually bring in more than they take through tourism. This is a tired argument and nothing to do with public money, equality and standard of living and work.
The brits have unlimited resources to support the leeching lifestyles of the so-called "royals." The brits spend zero on dentistry. The brits, even though they are a third world shthole, should have enough to send their athletes. All they need to do is defund the "royals" the way they have dentists.
Please stop. Dentists are both private and national health service (NHS). The lack of NHS provision in general is the result of successive decades of policies and market deregulation aimed at creating wealth for a very small minority etc etc. The royals actually bring in more than they take through tourism. This is a tired argument and nothing to do with public money, equality and standard of living and work.
. De regulation was to free up markets and not to create wealth for parts of the market.
The benefits of a non political head of state can’t be measured.
Your woke views will stop the creation of wealth to the point that we are all equally poor; so yes equality wins.I thought Marxism was a dead currency.
Another question I have - how big is the traveling party of non-athletes for UK Athletics? Are they receiving the same level of scrutiny and budget cuts? Making sure that all of them are providing value and not bring needless spectating officials.
For some reason I doubt it but happy to be proven wrong.
It's extra punishing and short sighted as for non US athletes, brands usually only want you if you're making world/Olympic teams.
Look at someone like Eilish McColgan. She was nominated for BBC Sports Personality of the year last year and became a star in the UK after her commonwealth and European medals. At world's/Olympics she has often struggled to make the 5k final and generally met some cynical criteria for being a "tourist" to most of the major champs of her career. The same goes for Jake Wightman (didn't even make the final in London 2017).
Would those two have been able to secure meaningful sponsorship to stay in the sport if they were never selected? Would they have been able to stick around to give us those great moments in 2022?
Wightman was 28 in Eugene, McColgan was 31.
The more athletes you keep in the system the more chances of later bloomers.
This is just life in Britain now though. You spend your life navigating the ridiculousness created by poor managers who have been over-promoted against their own intelligence and skill but who all too often act as brakes on successful performance of any organisation. The NHS is a prime example. We are top heavy in management with too little focus on producing the goods. Buckner will have got the job because he was willing to be a ruthless cost cutter and deliver savings. I don't expect its any more complex than that. Its a management decision, not a decision based on logic or respect for the sport or for the future of the athletes.
McColgan was actually refused lottery funding a few years back at the lower tier because they didn't think she was medal potential although she regularly made finals. Fortunately, she successfully appealed it and went on to be our top female distance runner. It must be slightly soul destroying though to have your own country show you such little support.
Lina Neilson has a Danish father and an Egyptian mother, she would probably be better off taking her talents to either of those countries on eligibility grounds and representing them instead. I wonder what the cut off date is for the Paris Olympics.
Anyway, I'm sure if we wait a year or so, there will be yet another manager put in place after yet another dramatic resignation, and all the policies will be changed at great expense yet again. Its not as if we don't regularly get changes of Prime Minister and Chancellors of the Exchequer, is it?
The brits have unlimited resources to support the leeching lifestyles of the so-called "royals." The brits spend zero on dentistry. The brits, even though they are a third world shthole, should have enough to send their athletes. All they need to do is defund the "royals" the way they have dentists.
Please stop. Dentists are both private and national health service (NHS). The lack of NHS provision in general is the result of successive decades of policies and market deregulation aimed at creating wealth for a very small minority etc etc. The royals actually bring in more than they take through tourism. This is a tired argument and nothing to do with public money, equality and standard of living and work.
Why should the brits pay the "royal" leeches anything? They are already rich from a millennium of theft and parasitism. They don't work. They don't contribute any of their wealth. We don't know that just as many people won't go to England because of the "royals" as do to gawk at the "royals." There is zero justification for supporting their layabout lifestyles. Put the money into reparations for the damages that they have caused. The "upper classes" of England have basically bankrupted the country.
Lina Neilsen, a w400 athlete, is ranked 27th in the world in her event. She just missed the standard by 0.06 but will be invited to Worlds under the ranking quota. Unfortunately, UK Athletics has already announced they will not bring her. With no other option to fund her own way to Budapest or seek funding from her club. Absolutely pathetic.
You anti-dentite barstad. Not only did selected Kiwi athletes have to self fund to Ballarat for Worlds, but selected Kiwis will also have to self fund to Riga for Worlds.
This is what happens when politicians get involved on the selection board - they think "hey, number 27 in the world isn't gonna medal for us anyway, so if the next in line is from a country we wanna have better diplomatic relations with, or should owe us one, we'll let them have it instead".
This is what happens when politicians get involved on the selection board - they think "hey, number 27 in the world isn't gonna medal for us anyway, so if the next in line is from a country we wanna have better diplomatic relations with, or should owe us one, we'll let them have it instead".
politicians are not involved in selection process / board .
As the saying goes, you miss 100% of the shots that you don't take. The US always sends a full team because you never know when someone will have an inspired championships. In Tokyo and Eugene, Team GB put several athletes into finals that were big surprises. Josh Zeller, Jodie Williams, Alex Bell, Jake Heyward all performed well above expectations to make finals. Jess Judd ran a ridiculous PB in the 10k. In previous years, people like Hannah England, Nicola Sanders, Darren Campbell, and Dean Macey have unexpectedly picked up medals. The margins between a medal and nothing are so fine in many events that it's worth taking the chances on athletes who may not be top-10 in the world
As the saying goes, you miss 100% of the shots that you don't take. The US always sends a full team because you never know when someone will have an inspired championships. In Tokyo and Eugene, Team GB put several athletes into finals that were big surprises. Josh Zeller, Jodie Williams, Alex Bell, Jake Heyward all performed well above expectations to make finals. Jess Judd ran a ridiculous PB in the 10k. In previous years, people like Hannah England, Nicola Sanders, Darren Campbell, and Dean Macey have unexpectedly picked up medals. The margins between a medal and nothing are so fine in many events that it's worth taking the chances on athletes who may not be top-10 in the world
My point is not that we may be leaving a potential medalist at home but the effect on the sport of leaving out WA invited athletes.
Apply the same logic to football and tennis and watch tennis die as a sport in the UK, with no UK entrants to Wimbledon. And no UK country would ever compete in the soccer world cup
Apply the same logic to football and tennis and watch tennis die as a sport in the UK, with no UK entrants to Wimbledon. And no UK country would ever compete in the soccer world cup
Tennis is viewed as to hard or elitist to be seen as participation sport thus we have paddle or pickle board which is taking over.
This is the situation even with the incentive of huge earnings and the LTA awash with money.
So the more super elitist the sport becomes the faster the decline at grass routes.
The refusal to allow self-funded participation by eligible athletes is the biggest failure here, and symptomatic of a general malaise in the UK. They may be unable to fund everyone, but they're also terrified of giving up control or being seen to allow alternatives to the system. The UK government establishment in general would much rather see everyone suffer than a few succeed through means that are not universally accessible and centrally planned.
There's no shortage of resources in the sport, it's just that the money is no longer fully controlled by the bureaucrats. This is a country that can easily sell 50,000 tickets to an athletics meet. For a talented, advertiser-friendly athlete with multiple sponsors and a large social media following, self-funding attendance at the World championships would be a very good investment. Everyone would end up richer and there would be no need for the UK taxpayer to provide a penny. But of course the control freaks in the central planning department would look silly if she succeeded, and the usual group of nasty, small minded busybodies would raise equality and inclusion concerns, so it's just banned outright.
The refusal to allow self-funded participation by eligible athletes is the biggest failure here, and symptomatic of a general malaise in the UK. They may be unable to fund everyone, but they're also terrified of giving up control or being seen to allow alternatives to the system. The UK government establishment in general would much rather see everyone suffer than a few succeed through means that are not universally accessible and centrally planned.
There's no shortage of resources in the sport, it's just that the money is no longer fully controlled by the bureaucrats. This is a country that can easily sell 50,000 tickets to an athletics meet. For a talented, advertiser-friendly athlete with multiple sponsors and a large social media following, self-funding attendance at the World championships would be a very good investment. Everyone would end up richer and there would be no need for the UK taxpayer to provide a penny. But of course the control freaks in the central planning department would look silly if she succeeded, and the usual group of nasty, small minded busybodies would raise equality and inclusion concerns, so it's just banned outright.
No benefit for sponsors as controlled by the governing bodies.
Not taxpayer money.
They say that self funded at W C would detract from concentrating on the Elite . UK Sport forced this …. again.
It is a truly frustrating country. I'm British but left several years ago because I was fed up with the typical poor management and low salaries. I now live in Switzerland, which is a much better run country.
I think too many British people believe that they have some sort of entitlement to a well paid career despite their shortcomings, and promotion is too often on the basis of who you know in spite of a very obvious absence of competence and ability. Often, employers simply don't want too competent people, as they might challenge the poor management. Management here seems to be about promoting the manager in question and that means implementing radical policies to change things, but the consequences are often poorly thought out.
Anyway, what we see in UKA and these ridiculous, super strict policies which harm the sport they are supposed to promote is all too common. Its almost impossible to argue against it because the decision makers are unaccountable. Clearly, having a policy which is so arbitrary is open to abuse. For instance, a selector's favourite athlete could get selected despite being lower down the rankings than a non selected but also qualified athlete. Didn't something similar happen with Kate Reed, a UK Olympic 10000m runner who finished 21st at the Beijing Olympics and was given an odd number of attempts to "prove her fitness"? UKA asked Reed to take a fitness test consisting of a 2,000m track session which was to be run at 50% of B standard pace, which she passed. Reed also shared a room with one of the 61 year old selectors for UKA on a training trip to South Africa before the Games.
Then there was some business over not selecting I think it was Andy Vernon as he had not run the track qualifying time for the 5000m and 10000m twice, despite being a European medallist the previous year?
The point being, the policy is clearly open to abuse as it can be applied arbitrarily when it diverts so far from the policy for selection on world rankings that applies to all other athletes from other countries.
Its clear that this policy is idiotic, but unfortunately management policies mean that athletes will suffer until the policy is removed and someone more sensible is at the helm of UKA. Of course, that doesn't deal with the problem of those who appointed him in the first place.
It is a truly frustrating country. I'm British but left several years ago because I was fed up with the typical poor management and low salaries. I now live in Switzerland, which is a much better run country.
I think too many British people believe that they have some sort of entitlement to a well paid career despite their shortcomings, and promotion is too often on the basis of who you know in spite of a very obvious absence of competence and ability. Often, employers simply don't want too competent people, as they might challenge the poor management. Management here seems to be about promoting the manager in question and that means implementing radical policies to change things, but the consequences are often poorly thought out.
Anyway, what we see in UKA and these ridiculous, super strict policies which harm the sport they are supposed to promote is all too common. Its almost impossible to argue against it because the decision makers are unaccountable. Clearly, having a policy which is so arbitrary is open to abuse. For instance, a selector's favourite athlete could get selected despite being lower down the rankings than a non selected but also qualified athlete. Didn't something similar happen with Kate Reed, a UK Olympic 10000m runner who finished 21st at the Beijing Olympics and was given an odd number of attempts to "prove her fitness"? UKA asked Reed to take a fitness test consisting of a 2,000m track session which was to be run at 50% of B standard pace, which she passed. Reed also shared a room with one of the 61 year old selectors for UKA on a training trip to South Africa before the Games.
Then there was some business over not selecting I think it was Andy Vernon as he had not run the track qualifying time for the 5000m and 10000m twice, despite being a European medallist the previous year?
The point being, the policy is clearly open to abuse as it can be applied arbitrarily when it diverts so far from the policy for selection on world rankings that applies to all other athletes from other countries.
Its clear that this policy is idiotic, but unfortunately management policies mean that athletes will suffer until the policy is removed and someone more sensible is at the helm of UKA. Of course, that doesn't deal with the problem of those who appointed him in the first place.
Great post and an elderly selector going into hiding.
A big problem is that UK Sport fund the sport and UKA are thus an extension of government policy.
Does the sport have any say on the proportion of its efforts for para athletics?
Won’t be too long before UKA is mostly for para sport as funding follows medals and para medals are as good as Keely’s.