Emily Pidgeon out of World Juniors?

Come on now!! wrote:

Typhoons? Flight attendents csared for their lives? ...

...You my friend are beginning to come across as pathetic with your criticisms. Stick to the topic at hand please!

What he writes is actually true. If you do not think it is, then I urge you to check.

Two hints though: 1 typhoon means strong wind, and 2 in the USA they are called Hurricanes.

I'm a lawyer (English law), but not an employment lawyer, so I'll keep out of the debate about whether or not they are employment contracts except to say that it is a complicated question and I would be interested to see the advice UKA received to the effect that they weren't.

I have no particular axe to grind, but I just wanted to correct a misinterpretation - without seeing the UKA dispute resolution policy we can's say that it is in the hands of UKA.

Those few employment contracts I have seen standardly have a clause like this, and the policy usually provides that before issuing legal proceedings you have to go through the internal complaints procedure of the company (e.g. complain to line manager, right of appeal to regional manager). I presume the UKA policy says something similar. I don't think this means you can't issue court proceedings, but a court would probably send you away until you had exhausted the internal procedures. Courts like these clauses as they prevent claims being brought that could have been settled without recourse to the courts. Once you have used the internal procedures, you can then issue court proceedings (or employment tribunal) if still not satisfied.

The IP question is interesting - the definition of whether something is developed in connection with the obligations under the agreement might allow wriggle-room for someone in a position similar to Backley, depending on what the obligations in fact are. It appears quite loosely drafted.

That should of course say "can't say" in the second paragraph

Come on now!! wrote:

Typhoons? Flight attendents csared for their lives? ...

...You my friend are beginning to come across as pathetic with your criticisms. Stick to the topic at hand please!

Macau - a great place during typhoon season

Typhoon sweeps into south China

* At least five people have been killed

* Some 65,000 people were evacuated

* More than 600 people died when Typhoon Bilis hit six southern Chinese provinces last month

* Provincial authorities had warned of widespread flooding, high waves, landslides and possible house collapses as up to 7.2in (18cm) of rain could fall in coming days.

* More than 53,000 fishing vessels were recalled to harbour, and ferry and railway links between Hainan and the mainland were suspended.

* More than 3,000 airline passengers were stranded in Hong Kong as hundreds of flights were cancelled or delayed

* Empty cargo containers toppled over at a Hong Kong shipping terminal, reportedly injuring one person.

* Typhoon Bilis killed hundreds...

Maybe Emily Pidgeon understands more about typhoons than UKA.

What a thread. It's amazing how some athletes inspire opinion when so many others are simply ignored. I suspect that whatever happens Emily Pidgeon will continue to make headlines and

My tuppence worth.

If I was advising EP I would suggest that she should go to the holding camp, and I don't think it's unreasonable for UKA to encourage all athletes attending a major championships to travel together adn to finalise their preparations at the same venue. However, if an athlete and their coach/adviser ultimately decides that they would rather travel alone and make their own arrangements - at their cost - then I think it's ridiculous that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Personally I think that making your arrangements puts more pressure on yourself to perform as you have to justify 'doing your own thing'. But as I say if Emily is happy to go alone then what's the problem?

Has selection policy officialy changed? In future will have an athlete have to not just meet the required standard but agree to travel with and attend and pre-event training camps? I wonder what would happen if an athlete says I don't want to spend so much time away from my studies or from my job (not all international athletes are full time!) so I'll just meet you there?

Also - re: contracts. It will interesting to find out eventually how many athletes who were offered a contract have actually signed it. I'm not against the contracts in principle but they do seem rather prescirptive. I suspect that most of those wh ohave signed have done so on trust or because they felt they had no option - as has been pointed out UKA is a monopoly so athletes have very few options open to them.

And another thing. I feel that there is an element of jealousy and sexism shown by some of the respondents on here - and other message boards. I still think that quite a few male runners don't like to see women running as well as Emily (and Paula) which is one reason when she gets so much stick. I think thhere are a lot of people who would love to see her ail just so they can turn round and say "I told you so".

Bazza wrote:

And another thing. I feel that there is an element of jealousy and sexism shown by some of the respondents on here - and other message boards. I still think that quite a few male runners don't like to see women running as well as Emily (and Paula) which is one reason when she gets so much stick. I think thhere are a lot of people who would love to see her ail just so they can turn round and say "I told you so".

While I agree with much of the rest of your post, Bazza, I'm not sure I see any evidence of this.

Bazza, pantman's right. Its not a sexist thing, although EP has more than her fair share of critics. DF is to blame for much of the support that goes 'against' his athletes in races. This is not unusual though, ive upset plenty of people over the years and im sure that some people have cheered on the opposition becuase of it at some point.

Farrow's group are like the Chelsea of junior athletics right now. They are rich, highly marketable, high performing, championship winning, record breaking, athletes, with a coach who appears to have a gifted touch, but often comes across as arrogant, pompous and self-centred. This is obviously a pattern for success.

Whatever people think of DF and his athletes though, they should not be excluded from championships for this kind of ridiculous reason...its just bloody stupid!

BILLZEEBUB wrote:

Farrow's group are like the Chelsea of junior athletics right now. They are rich, highly marketable, high performing, championship winning, record breaking, athletes, with a coach who appears to have a gifted touch, but often comes across as arrogant, pompous and self-centred. This is obviously a pattern for success.

Whatever people think of DF and his athletes though, they should not be excluded from championships for this kind of ridiculous reason...its just bloody stupid!

BILLZEEBUB, what you are saying is one of the problems...

...the audacity...

...to show that UKA's methods may not be the best!!

Have to stop that, what if others started to think independently???

We may see that the Wizard (UKA) does not have the great powers he claims...

Anyway, it seems like David Powell, Athletics Correspondent, at The Times does not disagree with my assessment of UKA as a Power-hungry & Control-oriented organisation.

UKA 'dictatorship' under attack for imposing ban

Thanks for the link - that is a great article!

I hope enough people take a stand against UKA's approach and get things changed. I'd hate it to be like this in the future.

UKA are there for the athletes, not vice versa.

so the powers that be at UKA, who have overseen the massive decline in standards over the last 8 or 9 years, one or two individuals aside, believe they know how best to prepare athletes for a major champs? if it wasn't so serious it would be funny. This 'don't compete 7 days before your event' is balls - yes an athlete could get injured, but they could also get injured 10 days before, 2 weeks before etc. They could get injured in training, or crossing the road and tripping up. its such a stupid thing to dictate to them. Can you imagine the guys UKA is now getting in to mentor - Christie or Thompson - listening to some bunch of mostly administrators about how to best prepare for a major games? Would they f%%k. they;d have done it their way and got the results.

Who's dictating these policies? John Trower - great Javelin coach - not recalling him coaching any 100m runners or hurdlers.

Zara Hyde Peters - what did you ever do? run about 34 mins for 10k - ever coached anyone? not to my knowledge - so feck off.

Using BillZees Chelsea analogy its like getting players who work under Jose Mourinho all week to be managed on match day by some county FA secretary from Cornwall (no offence to the cornish).

As a self-confessed Lydiard fan, one thing that concerns me about all this is that Lydiard would never have made it in the UK in the 21st century.

What if "Authur's boys" had not emerged from NZ in the 60s, but in the UK this year! Just imagine it!

He'd never get UKA qualifications and not be allowed to attend any championships; he'd be criticised for overdoing the mileage with youngsters (middle distance teenagers doing hilly 20M runs!), for inappropriate footwear, for not racing enough year round and for not training the "standard" way.

He'd constantly clash over UKA age limits (read his book on training younger atheltes) and probably end up organising his own unofficial "time trial" races for them before seeing them closed down and/or getting sued over health and safety regulations!

Would Snell, Halberg, et al ever have made it?

I know nothing of Farrow's approach to training and I'm well aware of the accusations that he's overtraining them and they won't make it to the senior ranks (did Lydiard not get the same?), but he's getting results. Surely UKA should be supporting him in HIS way of doing things, or is it not their job to get results too?

Pantman wrote:

Would Snell, Halberg, et al ever have made it?

I think we know the answer... ...but considering that they would probably not have been given a chance to show their potential the UKA would not have had to answer to anything...

Another interesting article...

Little Optimism Over Gothenburg

"The Norwich Union GB team will do well to come away from next week's European Championships in Gothenburg with seven or eight medals, claims former UK Athletics performance director Max Jones."

"Jones insisted: "European standards, not just ours, are getting gradually worse, so that isn't a factor."

Interesting comment... ...European standards are going down... ...but our standards are dropping even faster...

Great!!!

These are UKA's words, not mine...

...yet, three days ago I was attacked by Pidgin english (who seems to work for the UKA), when I pointed out their incompetence...

interesting article and it highlights a problem displayed by many large organistions in that get too worked up with processes rather than results and a one-size-fits-all mentality. Sure. most athletes won't want to compete this near to a major championships but once again it should ultimately be the athlete and his/her coach that decides when to race and what preparation they should do.

Different athletes have different approaches. Some race a lot, some race sparingly. Some are in great form, some are coming back form injury. If Sharman runs badly next week then UKA can turn round and say 'we told you so' but I suspect UKA are too concerned about ticking boxes rathern than considering what is best for each athlete.

Interesting article from The Times there, it'll be interesting to see if any other coaches speak out against the current UK:A during or after the Europeans.

There are plenty of people being left pissed off right now, so its only a matter of time before people start to speak out in greater numbers. UK:A appear to be pushing thier luck right now, but they're leaders are UK Sport though, so what chance have disgruntled athletes, parents and coaches actually got? Very little, but hopefully that wont stop genuine cases being addressed. I was starting to believe that under Collins, the sport was taking a turn in the right direction, but i feel that the current disputes will only be followed up with bigger cases and i think that he will be left carrying the can as the head of performance. Ah well, he is on big boys wages, so this kind of pressure is pretty much standard i suppose.

I was only joking with the Chelsea analogy, but glad you found use of it, haha.

Max Jones - performance director? or, lack thereof

'Zara Hyde Peters - what did you ever do? run about 34 mins for 10k'

sorry did I miss Dave Farrow's athletic career? The only thing I've seen is him telling a 14 year old girl that she was only allowed to speak to him whilst the athletes were between the back straight and the steeple barrier! What a looper! I stood next to him at a few meetings and I have to say control freak is an understatement.

Why Britain is on track for Games humiliation in 2012

By Matthew Syed

Our correspondent says that after repeated failures, the spin cycle employed by the sport’s governing body just won't wash

THE surest sign that an institution is heading towards the knacker’s yard is when it becomes paranoid about negative publicity. The Home Office, for example, is reported to have trebled its number of press officers since 1997 in the comical belief that it can spin its way out trouble.

UK Athletics (UKA) is treading the same deluded path. It is spending more than £500,000 a year on PR and communications and has slapped gagging orders on its athletes in the form of contracts, in the desperate hope that it might serve to conceal the wretched state of a once thriving sport.

But the truth will out — especially when the facts are so damning. At the last big competition, the World Championships in Helsinki last year, fewer Great Britain athletes made finals than ever before. As in Athens at the Olympic Games in 2004, only one British male reached a track final. England’s gold-medal count at the Commonwealth Games in March was the lowest since 1970.

Rob Whittingham, UKA’s own statistician, said: “Elite performance in Britain is the worst it has been in global terms in history,” a verdict confirmed by the dire results at the Norwich Union London Grand Prix at Crystal Palace on Friday. As the Britain team prepare to fly to the European Championships in Gothenburg, which start next Monday, many are predicting the lightest medal haul since 1966.

But the malaise goes far deeper. At the last World Junior Championships in 2004, Britain failed to win a medal for the first time since 1972. The grass roots are little better. The Sussex Championships last month — a meeting that in the glory days would have been staged over five evenings, with finals at the weekend — was contested over two afternoons, with many events going straight to a final.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the cash earmarked by UKA for the purposes of spin would be better spent on severance payments for those presiding over this debacle. If you think this harsh, let me remind you that if things do not improve soon, we will face the humiliation of a succession of finals at the 2012 Olympic Games in London in which Britain not only fail to win medals but will not even have any home participation. This is about more than athletics; it is about national self-esteem.

The track record of those running athletics is more woeful when you consider the amount of public money that they have had at their disposal. Since 1997, UKA has spent more than £25 million of Lottery money on what it rather optimistically calls its World Class Podium Programme.

The man presiding over these failures is David Moorcroft, a former distance runner who has been chief executive of UKA since 1997. He believes that he is doing a good job. So good, in fact, that a group of 137 clubs formed a breakaway movement last year to press for change because they have lost confidence in the governing body.

Moorcroft is responsible for many of the problems afflicting British athletics. He has assembled a vast staff (UKA employs about 115 people at an annual cost of £3.6 million, according to Moorcroft’s own figures) while presiding over declining standards in both performance and participation. He has failed to deliver properly targeted funding to the grass roots. He has allowed the elite- performance budget to be mismanaged. And he has failed to get to grips with the chronic shortage of high-quality coaches.

Most shamefully, Moorcroft has undermined his own anti-doping policy by allowing Dwain Chambers, a discredited drugs cheat, to run in Britain colours before he has even paid back the prize-money that he won while on steroids. Last year’s report by Sir Andrew Foster, commissioned by UK Sport and Sport England, forced UKA into some policy changes, but why should anyone trust Moorcroft to deliver them after nine years of failure?

Many will say that Moorcroft is a decent chap, and they are right, but this is precisely what is wrong with British sport. There is too much camaraderie and not enough accountability. Governing bodies, like the old nationalised industries, are not subject to market disciplines, which is why those who fail are able to cling on to their jobs indefinitely.

Moorcroft vigorously defended his track record, pointing to a number of recent initiatives, some decent youth performances in recent months and a new multimillion-pound sponsorship deal with Norwich Union. He also argued that UKA has invested record amounts of money, not seeming to realise that this is precisely why people are so concerned at the lack of delivery.

But who to take over? The dream appointment would be Lord Coe, someone with an unprecedented record of success both as an athlete and as the chairman of the London 2012 bid team.

Coe offers the only real prospect of the systematic shake-up that is required if British athletics is to escape from the black hole into which it has fallen. With 2012 looming, this is an issue that cannot be ducked any longer.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,4662-2293662,00.html

holy moly wrote:

The only thing I've seen is him telling a 14 year old girl that she was only allowed to speak to him whilst the athletes were between the back straight and the steeple barrier! What a looper! I stood next to him at a few meetings and I have to say control freak is an understatement.

Let's just presume for a moment that you're right and that your judgement is unbiased. So what if he is a control freak?

He gets results.

And what difference does that make to the decisions UKA have made regarding EP?

Well done for throwing some mud, but what has it added to the discussion/debate?