UK Sport have they must concentrate on finalists etc and they they that a big team stops that as resources get spread.
What resources. If the anthlete pays their own way, and organizes everything as a private competitor what resources are they taking up?
It's all about money. UKA is only operating on loans and bailouts. They don't want to say it is about money because it's embarrassing for them, as they caused their poor financial situation.
In a British stiff upper lip way they are saying it's is about performance not about money. Therefore they can't be seen to allow athletes they are excluding to pay their own way.
What resources. If the anthlete pays their own way, and organizes everything as a private competitor what resources are they taking up?
It's all about money. UKA is only operating on loans and bailouts. They don't want to say it is about money because it's embarrassing for them, as they caused their poor financial situation.
In a British stiff upper lip way they are saying it's is about performance not about money. Therefore they can't be seen to allow athletes they are excluding to pay their own way.
But don't be deceived, it is all about money.
Uk sport funds and dictates and they say finalists etc only .
However UK Sport find more para athletes than able . Para medals are same value as able .
It's all about money. UKA is only operating on loans and bailouts. They don't want to say it is about money because it's embarrassing for them, as they caused their poor financial situation.
In a British stiff upper lip way they are saying it's is about performance not about money. Therefore they can't be seen to allow athletes they are excluding to pay their own way.
But don't be deceived, it is all about money.
Uk sport funds and dictates and they say finalists etc only .
However UK Sport find more para athletes than able . Para medals are same value as able .
I would agree with you that it is also about medals, but that still ties back to being about money. UK sport funding is allocated based on how successful a sport will be, and success is tied to medals.
However the paradox is that a sport will statistically have a greater chance of winning more medals if they take a bigger team - but UKA cannot afford to do this anymore. Their funding has been cut year after year since the Olympics and they have been commercially very poor.
Joanne Coates and others in the UKA inner circle did not know how to manage a sport in a way which generates revenue on top of its funding.
Uk sport funds and dictates and they say finalists etc only .
However UK Sport find more para athletes than able . Para medals are same value as able .
I would agree with you that it is also about medals, but that still ties back to being about money. UK sport funding is allocated based on how successful a sport will be, and success is tied to medals.
However the paradox is that a sport will statistically have a greater chance of winning more medals if they take a bigger team - but UKA cannot afford to do this anymore. Their funding has been cut year after year since the Olympics and they have been commercially very poor.
Joanne Coates and others in the UKA inner circle did not know how to manage a sport in a way which generates revenue on top of its funding.
UK Sport dictated the selection policy.
Even if a money tree fell on uka they could still not breach that dictated policy.
This does not mean that the sport has been badly run and in general the coffers are empty.
And then welfare cases denuding whatever is left or in reserves.
Is a para medal the same value as winning the 100 at the WC?
UK Sport have they must concentrate on finalists etc and they they that a big team stops that as resources get spread.
What resources. If the anthlete pays their own way, and organizes everything as a private competitor what resources are they taking up?
Earlier in this thread I asked a similar question, i.e., why not enter more people and let them pay their own way? I also put this question to a friend who is very close to this situation. He told me that UKA's rules require them to fund any athlete any athlete who places in the top eight at championship meets. This would apply to anyone who paid their own way to the meet as well as to the athletes UKA is paying for. So basically UKA is afraid some self paid athletes might finish eighth or better and then UKA would need to pay them.
What resources. If the anthlete pays their own way, and organizes everything as a private competitor what resources are they taking up?
Earlier in this thread I asked a similar question, i.e., why not enter more people and let them pay their own way? I also put this question to a friend who is very close to this situation. He told me that UKA's rules require them to fund any athlete any athlete who places in the top eight at championship meets. This would apply to anyone who paid their own way to the meet as well as to the athletes UKA is paying for. So basically UKA is afraid some self paid athletes might finish eighth or better and then UKA would need to pay them.
I need to see these rules as the only comment about the “ extras” is that they would dilute the back room help for the elite.
So why not spend less on para as this is truth that the vast majority in the sport feel but dare not say.
Earlier in this thread I asked a similar question, i.e., why not enter more people and let them pay their own way? I also put this question to a friend who is very close to this situation. He told me that UKA's rules require them to fund any athlete any athlete who places in the top eight at championship meets. This would apply to anyone who paid their own way to the meet as well as to the athletes UKA is paying for. So basically UKA is afraid some self paid athletes might finish eighth or better and then UKA would need to pay them.
I need to see these rules as the only comment about the “ extras” is that they would dilute the back room help for the elite.
So why not spend less on para as this is truth that the vast majority in the sport feel but dare not say.
I'm only repeating what I was told and have no first hand information here. But I've got a really reliable source. I think we both know that anything done officially that treats para athletes as "less" than fully able ones will not go over well.
I need to see these rules as the only comment about the “ extras” is that they would dilute the back room help for the elite.
So why not spend less on para as this is truth that the vast majority in the sport feel but dare not say.
I'm only repeating what I was told and have no first hand information here. But I've got a really reliable source. I think we both know that anything done officially that treats para athletes as "less" than fully able ones will not go over well.
You are right but it is not beyond sense to point out that para dilutes able and that is the consequence of inclusivity.
What resources. If the anthlete pays their own way, and organizes everything as a private competitor what resources are they taking up?
Earlier in this thread I asked a similar question, i.e., why not enter more people and let them pay their own way? I also put this question to a friend who is very close to this situation. He told me that UKA's rules require them to fund any athlete any athlete who places in the top eight at championship meets. This would apply to anyone who paid their own way to the meet as well as to the athletes UKA is paying for. So basically UKA is afraid some self paid athletes might finish eighth or better and then UKA would need to pay them.
Wow if thats true, the debt must be real bad. They don't want finalists who are unlikely to bring home a medal!?! But if that was true shouldn't their standards be even stricter? Someone running 51.00 is more at risk of making the finals and not medaling than someone running 51.1.