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.
Good point. A quick check reveals that there are currently 15 British individual athletes receiving Olympic level funding and 18 para athletes. Denying athletes the opportunity to compete for medals or gain championship experience (what young athlete is ready to win medals at their first major championships?) is clearly very harmful to the sport in the UK.
Surely the elderly selector is not still involved with UKA?
I think its obvious that UKA and similar organisations don't want people who ask awkward questions or actually get things done in the job. I remember actually writing the diversity and inclusion policy for an public body I worked for in the UK, presumably because no-one else wanted the task. I was a trainee at that time and didn't know enough about the topic to produce anything other than a cut and paste job padded out with waffle and a few of their favourite buzzwords/phrases. That policy is still on their website, nearly 15 years later. Theres been some tweaks, but a substantial amount of my content is still there. People make decisions on the basis of that policy.
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.
Good point. A quick check reveals that there are currently 15 British individual athletes receiving Olympic level funding and 18 para athletes. Denying athletes the opportunity to compete for medals or gain championship experience (what young athlete is ready to win medals at their first major championships?) is clearly very harmful to the sport in the UK.
Surely the elderly selector is not still involved with UKA?
I think its obvious that UKA and similar organisations don't want people who ask awkward questions or actually get things done in the job. I remember actually writing the diversity and inclusion policy for a public body I worked for in the UK, presumably because no-one else wanted the task. I was a trainee at that time and didn't know enough about the topic to produce anything other than a cut and paste job padded out with waffle and a few of their favourite buzzwords/phrases. That policy is still on their website, nearly 15 years later. Theres been some tweaks, but a substantial amount of my content is still there. People make decisions on the basis of that policy.
Bet our American friends are staggered that track and field is now a para majority sport judged by the responsibilities of the Governing Body.Given the medals at the world para champs just at Paris and what might happen in Budapest the balance will be even more to para.
Meanwhile ; athletes invited by WA won’t be going.
Realistically she would go to World's and fail to make it out of the first round so I understand the decision
Why not just allow every British athlete with the ranking/qualifying standard go to the worlds assuming a max quota of 3 or 4 athletes per event for the competing nation? But they all have to pay their own way - nothing will be funded by the British federation. Then the federation can give money back to those who win medals. This policy would reflect what the British federation wants to do - just give money to those who win medals - everyone else is just a waste of money.
The IAAF could also follow a British Athletics policy and just invite the top 3 ranked athletes in each event to the world champs. Those are the athletes most likely to win medals and every other athlete is just a waste of resources. This will save a huge amount of money for the IAAF. The Olympics could do the same...
Realistically she would go to World's and fail to make it out of the first round so I understand the decision
Why not just allow every British athlete with the ranking/qualifying standard go to the worlds assuming a max quota of 3 or 4 athletes per event for the competing nation? But they all have to pay their own way - nothing will be funded by the British federation. Then the federation can give money back to those who win medals. This policy would reflect what the British federation wants to do - just give money to those who win medals - everyone else is just a waste of money.
The IAAF could also follow a British Athletics policy and just invite the top 3 ranked athletes in each event to the world champs. Those are the athletes most likely to win medals and every other athlete is just a waste of resources. This will save a huge amount of money for the IAAF. The Olympics could do the same...
You have failed to read that they say if you take a big team you can’t concentrate resources of the elite.
Josh Zeller made the 110h final in Eugene last year and has run 13.19 this year, any system that doesn't bring a 22yo with that track record to worlds is deeply flawed.
Even if the Brits want to prioritize medals, wouldn't you want Zeller to get this international experience to maximize his chances of medaling in Paris next year?
If you haven't already got a medal at a development meet, then you shouldn't be going funded to a Senior meet (World's, Olympics). So U18, U20, U23 teams, NACAC, Euro's, CG, NCAA's, etc.). But should be allowed to pay your way from your Pro contract. Everybody is a Pro, right?
If you haven't already got a medal at a development meet, then you shouldn't be going funded to a Senior meet (World's, Olympics). So U18, U20, U23 teams, NACAC, Euro's, CG, NCAA's, etc.). But should be allowed to pay your way from your Pro contract. Everybody is a Pro, right?
Most of the team are not Pro; whatever you mean by that.
we set a higher standard than the worlds for our tax assisted athletes.
they dont meet it. they dont go. i dont waste money, it goes somewhere more efficient.
i dont see the problem, as a UKA member.
Let them pay their own way. The spirit of the World Champs/Olympics was letting every country send their 3 best athletes for each event. I would rather do that than a qualifying standard. But what's happening here is people have earned their way in by world ranking and the federation saying no. The federation shouldn't get to decide that. Qualified athletes should get to go. Let them decide. Let them gain experience. Let them figure out how to get there and where to stay.
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
Nike doesn't drop $25 million per year on British AAA like it does with USA AAU.