Emily Pidgeon out of World Juniors?

Simpleton wrote:

So that still leaves me slightly mystified as to why all of the athletes have signed and Emily wont.

adidas and Nike think its OK, a hundred athletes at least think its OK, but Emily doesnt.

To sign the contract and to think it is OK are two completely different things.

Simpleton wrote:

I think that you are suggesting that they were bullied or given no option. Certainly there seems to be no option re Lottery Funding, but that is controlled by UK Sport. Do you think that UK Sport have allowed UKA to add extra conditions in to the contract that are inappropriate ?

I think that is exactly the point.

Interesting stuff. Off the cuff, and with no legal background myself - does this mean that if Steve backley had built up while he was still on the UKA WCPP that PAC system that he has been doing post retirement, and such a contract had been in place then, would the commercial value of the product and any benefits be UKA's intellectual property?

Sorry no connection to 'longthrow'.

If you go back and read;

"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."

If this is not akin to "TRUST US, TRUST US", I do not know what is...

"a Disney artist draws while under contract is automatically owned by Disney."

Correct, but:

1. the artist has an employment contract and is protected under employment law, the athlete is afforded no such protection (by design),

2. the artist does not have to work for Disney, the athlete has no such choice UKA is a monopoly,

3. the artist is hired, and compensated, to draw things, the athlete is not signed up for, nor compensated for his/her creation of Intellectual Property...

These are only the most serious differences.

Sorry no connection to 'longthrow'.

If you go back and read;

"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."

If this is not akin to "TRUST US, TRUST US", I do not know what is...

"a Disney artist draws while under contract is automatically owned by Disney."

Correct, but:

1. the artist has an employment contract and is protected under employment law, the athlete is afforded no such protection (by design),

2. the artist does not have to work for Disney, the athlete has no such choice UKA is a monopoly,

3. the artist is hired, and compensated, to draw things, the athlete is not signed up for, or compensated for his/her creation of Intellectual Property...

These are only the most serious differences.

Sorry no connection to 'longthrow'.

If you go back and read;

"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."

If this is not akin to "TRUST US, TRUST US", I do not know what is...

"a Disney artist draws while under contract is automatically owned by Disney."

Correct, but:

1. the artist has an employment contract and is protected under employment law, the athlete is afforded no such protection (by design),

2. the artist does not have to work for Disney, the athlete has no such choice UKA is a monopoly,

3. the artist is hired, and compensated, to draw things, the athlete is not signed up for, or compensated for his/her creation of Intellectual Property...

These are only the most serious differences.

davidch wrote:

Interesting stuff. Off the cuff, and with no legal background myself - does this mean that if Steve backley had built up while he was still on the UKA WCPP that PAC system that he has been doing post retirement, and such a contract had been in place then, would the commercial value of the product and any benefits be UKA's intellectual property?

Exactly, if they wanted to... ...and he would not even have been able to bring his complaints to court, with Dispute resolution in the hands of UKA.

(I do have a legal background, and I have dealt with contracts on most continents.)

Sorry about multiple postings. A computer/internet malfunction it seems

Are U kidding? wrote:

2. the artist does not have to work for Disney, the athlete has no such choice UKA is a monopoly

This is the crucial distinction in all of this.

Pantman wrote:

Are U kidding? wrote:

2. the artist does not have to work for Disney, the athlete has no such choice UKA is a monopoly

This is the crucial distinction in all of this.

Make the sheep think they are free and have a say...

I’m amazed at the differences between the UK and US systems here. It seems like UK junior athletes have access to much greater coaching resources, funding, etc. than in the US – but they have to abide by the controls, both good and bad of the UKA.

Emily shows real potential, but so do some US juniors who can’t accept 1 cent from winning a road race or will be banned by the NCAA. Contrast this to where Emily, still of high school age, can sign contracts with Nike (for $$$$) get funding for trips to all the big meets from UKA, etc.

What choices do top junior distance athletes like Blood, Sherf, Bowman, Hassey have in the US? Blood & Sherf both had terrible high school coaches and were forced to leave their HS teams for their own safety. Their families they had to pay for a private coach and all related traveling to HS and JR championship meets. In college, Sherf ended up coaching herself for much of her first two years because the coach was too laid back.

For developing top junior athletes, it would seem best to permit the funding & coaching opportunities allowed in the UK, while still allowing the more flexible oversite found in the US. Comments?

This thread is a monster, so i cant possibly try to add my 2p to every angle, but here goes.

After all the trouble UK:A have had with DF & the Pidgeon clan, why on earth would they not jump at the chance of having them pay their own way there, via a different destination? Sounds like the perfect solution to me!

As DF coaching licence is still frozen, i doubt that UK:A would have let him anywhere near the team HQ, let alone allow him the usual level of access that Emily would be used to. How can this be the best thing for the athlete? Its an individual sport and i dont see Emily as a big team player. She works very well within her own group, and thats great, but UK:A should not be forcing her to 'belong' in a team hotel thats going to have its usual quota of clowns that want to spend their time piss-arsing around 24/7...yes, i mean the sprinters.

EP is well used to training and racing abroad, and any comparison to how Paula R did things as a junior are pointless, as what EP and DF are doing is far more structured and driven than anything the Stantons were doing with Paula back then. She has spent as much, if not more time training abroad than most of our current senior team will have done over the past 4-5 yrs, so i think that DF will already have a good working routine in place for her, so why should they change it, providing that he can provide a better option at their own expense? I see no reason for UK:A to say that she cannot do this...i truely dont believe that the holding camp in Macau would help her at all and i wish UK:A would just let them get on with it. If she had signed the contract, then fair one, she should travel with the rest of the signees, but she hasnt, so let her make her own way there. EP is the best distance girl we have seen in years, so she should be entered regardless of what background arguements are rumbling on.

The poster who said that they very much doubted that Emily etc would be able to cope with the media interest must have been snoozing for the past 4-5 yrs as its been one huge media frenzy since day one, she has even been on breakfast tv with Kelly H recently, and I bet you cant recall that kind of thing happening with a 17 yr old distance runner for some time....i think that EP is quited used to it all by now and is becoming more media savvy each season.

The venue should be ok. Its an interesting place Macau, and will hopefully be a good training base, but we wont know until after the WJC i suppose. On the neg side though, its reknowned for its food poisoning, pick pockets & typhoon season. Have a guess when the typhoon season falls? Surprise surprise.

Whatever happens, i feel that Emily has been pushed into a corner by UK:A for reasons beyond her control. This girl is being used by both parties and its wrong.

Emily is the best distance runner we have seen in our junior ranks since Zola Budd and should be in that 5k line up without a doubt, alongside Sian Edwards. Time though, is running out.

USvsUK wrote:

For developing top junior athletes, it would seem best to permit the funding & coaching opportunities allowed in the UK, while still allowing the more flexible oversite found in the US. Comments?

Agree to a point. Flexibility, freedom and autonomy are a must. The "no prize money" rule sucks though!

Just remember that the UK coaching system has both its pluses and its minuses - do you think Lydiard would ever have made it to a level 4 UKA coach?!?

BillZeebub,

Great insight - thanks. I remember from a previous thread that you are a coach - yours was the kind of input I had hoped for when starting the thread.

The helpful thing about threads like this is that the more the two opposing views post the clearer (eventually) things become (to me at least!)

It seems that much of this boils down to how much control one thinks it is appropriate for the governing body to have. You clearly think "not much" - UK boy (for example) seemed to think it was more than reasonable for them to have a lot more.

Personally I fall very squarely down on the "very little control" side. Especially with Junior athletes.

I have five children. They are my kids. I'll decide if they can run, with whom, how much, how hard, etc. Just as I decide on issues of schooling, discipline, morality, entertainment and other such issues. Sure, as they get older you give them more autonomy - start to act less as a dictator and more as a guide. But the bottom line is that they are my kids - I am responsible for them and accountable for what happens to them. In running as in every other area of life.

I deeply resent UKA telling me they can or cannot run so far at such and such an age. I understand why they say it. But the choice should be mine. My kids. Not theirs. If my decisions regarding their running (such as choice of coach) are crap and screw them up, then so be it. Just as it would be if my choice of school was bad, for example. That comes with the territory of being a parent.

My guess is that Mr Pidgeon is much the same. He didn't like being told what his daughter could or couldn't do by "experts" and officials. He didn't like being told she couldn't join an athletics club because she was too young. Or that she couldn't race a 5K at 13 because she was a girl and not a boy. I suspect it has just escalated from there. UKA feeling they should have more control and resenting him taking some from them; Mr Pidgeon resenting the control they had and trying to keep what control he did have and regain more.

IF that is the case, I square 100% with Mr Pidgeon and the man he has chosen to coach his daughter. She is his daughter and he is responsible for her. He should have control. If she loses out because he makes poor decisions, then that's hard on her, but that's what parenting is all about - making decisions for your kids as best you can with all the love in the world and sometimes getting it wrong.

It's certainly not the governing body's job to step in and say "you can't train/prepare/race your daughter that way, let us show you how it should be done".

UKA need to back down and get the girl to the start line in the manner her camp chooses before they lose our nation one of its finest runnign prospects.

davidch wrote:

Interesting stuff. Off the cuff, and with no legal background myself - does this mean that if Steve backley had built up while he was still on the UKA WCPP that PAC system that he has been doing post retirement, and such a contract had been in place then, would the commercial value of the product and any benefits be UKA's intellectual property?

Seems like Steve would have been out of luck

BillZeebub, I think your nom de plume makes you sound far more satanic than you are.

The reason that many athletes have signed them having recieved legal advice is that they will have been told that many of the clauses would not survive a challenge in English courts under the prevailing human rights legislation.

What baffles me is that UKA, who must have had similar advice, are proceeding to put themselves in a very risky position by forcing these through in their current form. It only takes one disgruntled athlete, with some financial backing, to go to court and we know the effects of legal costs from the Modahl case.

Just imagine the carnage if Pidgeon had actually signed before being 'withdrawn' from the team !

And I doubt the change of first claim rules would survive either but thats a different story.

Legal Eagle wrote:

The reason that many athletes have signed them having recieved legal advice is that they will have been told that many of the clauses would not survive a challenge in English courts under the prevailing human rights legislation.

What baffles me is that UKA, who must have had similar advice, are proceeding to put themselves in a very risky position by forcing these through in their current form. It only takes one disgruntled athlete, with some financial backing, to go to court and we know the effects of legal costs from the Modahl case.

Just imagine the carnage if Pidgeon had actually signed before being 'withdrawn' from the team !

And I doubt the change of first claim rules would survive either but thats a different story.

As I wrote two days ago:

"The incompetence seems to run rampant."

Legal Eagle is very likely correct, and hopefully UKA 'gets the message', as it right now, the UKA is dangerous for themselves, and for Athletics in UK.

BillZeebub wrote:

The venue should be ok. Its an interesting place Macau, and will hopefully be a good training base, but we wont know until after the WJC i suppose. On the neg side though, its reknowned for its food poisoning, pick pockets & typhoon season. Have a guess when the typhoon season falls? Surprise surprise.

As I wrote two days ago:

"The incompetence seems to run rampant."

Having lived & worked in the Far East, I can tell you that typhoons are not condusive to training, and preparation to put it very, very politely...

...AND they are not uncommon at all, rather the chance having one in Macau in August is quite good.

Of course, it will significantly add to the experience, but I am not quite sure it will be appreciated...

...especially I their flight arrives/leaves just ahead, or at the tail-end of a typhoon...

I have seen normally jaded flight attendants strapped in their seats for more than an hour, blue in their faces, too scared to leaves their seat...

Let us hope UKA's sake this will not happen, regardless of if they deserve it or not... ...because it would not be very fun to justify something that can be reasonably foreseeable...

In closing, typhoons are no joke even for airlines quite used to them (see links):

Also note the date:

August 22nd, 1999

About the same time as the camp.

As I just said:

"The incompetence seems to run rampant."