Mad Jock McMad wrote:
My 9 year old daughter has more, and tougher competition at her school sports day than most para athletes do.
Oh dear dear me!Astonishing views.
The same criteria for funding for para and able should apply.
If this means that there are only a few able athletes on funding and 95% are para then that is the right outcome.
In fact it should only be for gold medalists that should remove all able athletes from the biased funding model.
Answers now please UKA wrote:
High hopes wrote:
It's a joke. The UK team choose their favourites and distance runners suffer as there is no Head of Endurance yet who can advocate for them. Jess Judd, McColgan and Amy Eloise Markovc all deserved better.
......
Anyway, UKA continues to be the clown show it has been for years. Anyone who succeeded in UK athletics does so in spite of the system, not because of it
Could not agree more. Endurance athletes suffer every single time - 16 sprinters for the relays and loads of our top distance runners missing. Are all these sprinters podium potential? Will any of them prove unclean and lose medals for the whole team?
Also, what is UKA doing with all the money from road race permits? It certainly isn't making its way to the clubs that are the greatest developers and talent in the UK.
As for Marc Scott, having won the three Great Runs recently, he's proven himself. at the top level on the roads. Likewise Dr Sesemann and Jake Smith, etc. both of whom are missing from the lists,
UKA need specific measurable objectives rather than simply throwing money at athletes who aren't racing and are not proving their podium potential. The current system is ridiculous and needs to change.
I forgot about Jake Smith. It's crazy he's not on funding. He's an obvious distance talent that needs development. He raced the World HM champs and finished in 60:31. Again, he showed up and performed when selected to represent his country. Both Farah and Hawkins could have raced but swerved it. Smith has also been doing good pace jobs for UK marathoners, and clearly has potential in the event - he ran 2:11 in his first marathon in which he was a pacer but just decided to carry on. 2:11 with no marathon training and just one gel. He's 23 and now is the time to make focus on his development. But UKA? Nah, let's continue to fund male sprinters to run 10:30
parafundin wrote:
Just wait to see the mass of para athletes on funding and if there is to parity of funding there would be 6 times the funding for para.
And how much of UKA HQ costs are para and when parity how much more
Uka is nearly a para organisation ; get used to it.
This is unfortunately is an unsolvable debate. If we say that para athletes should not be funded because they have less competition or whatever, then there will be people who can argue that women athletes should not be funded as they have less competition etc than the men. I don't know how the system is going to be totally justified as there will always be athletes who some people feel should have funding.
Maybe para athletes should be funded as their life circumstances are much more difficult than able bodied people and the funding for able bodied athletes should be just scrapped? If funding for able bodied athletes is left to sponsorship maybe this would help reduce feelings of injustice? I think it is a good thing for a civilized society to provide the best possible life opportunities for people who have had health issues that have prevented them from being fully able bodied.
Answers now please UKA wrote:
High hopes wrote:
It's a joke. The UK team choose their favourites and distance runners suffer as there is no Head of Endurance yet who can advocate for them. Jess Judd, McColgan and Amy Eloise Markovc all deserved better.
......
Anyway, UKA continues to be the clown show it has been for years. Anyone who succeeded in UK athletics does so in spite of the system, not because of it
Could not agree more. Endurance athletes suffer every single time - 16 sprinters for the relays and loads of our top distance runners missing. Are all these sprinters podium potential? Will any of them prove unclean and lose medals for the whole team?
Also, what is UKA doing with all the money from road race permits? It certainly isn't making its way to the clubs that are the greatest developers and talent in the UK.
As for Marc Scott, having won the three Great Runs recently, he's proven himself. at the top level on the roads. Likewise Dr Sesemann and Jake Smith, etc. both of whom are missing from the lists,
UKA need specific measurable objectives rather than simply throwing money at athletes who aren't racing and are not proving their podium potential. The current system is ridiculous and needs to change.
The relay medals count to the tally just the same. All of those relay teams have a decent chance of a medal at the next World Champs.
As fantastic as Phil and Jake are, they are not as likely to get a medal as those relay athletes. That's the nature of the event they have chosen. On the plus side, there are a hell of a lot more opportunities to earn prize money as a road runner than a sprinter at their level, so the scales tip back in their favour on that one.
Not sure why you bring up race permits, since funding comes from money specifically earmarked for funding, given to UKA to dole out and entirely separate from their other activities but... If you spread any profit from the race permits across all clubs it would be a meaningless amount. If clubs believe that they need more money to achieve a particular goal they should either increase their fees (many are less than £1/week), seek out sponsorship or exploit the value that they have - many of the sports centres that clubs operate out of will charge members a fortune for recreational running groups or kids clubs. After school clubs could be another lucrative venture.
But it's easier just to complain about UKA and the relatively small amount of money that they receive...
Masters athletes aren't funded as they dont have the capabilities to compete at the highest levels.
Funding should be for the best of the best.
And yes, the funding criteria are biased.
skepticalpanda wrote:
Answers now please UKA wrote:
Could not agree more. Endurance athletes suffer every single time - 16 sprinters for the relays and loads of our top distance runners missing. Are all these sprinters podium potential? Will any of them prove unclean and lose medals for the whole team?
Also, what is UKA doing with all the money from road race permits? It certainly isn't making its way to the clubs that are the greatest developers and talent in the UK.
As for Marc Scott, having won the three Great Runs recently, he's proven himself. at the top level on the roads. Likewise Dr Sesemann and Jake Smith, etc. both of whom are missing from the lists,
UKA need specific measurable objectives rather than simply throwing money at athletes who aren't racing and are not proving their podium potential. The current system is ridiculous and needs to change.
The relay medals count to the tally just the same. All of those relay teams have a decent chance of a medal at the next World Champs.
As fantastic as Phil and Jake are, they are not as likely to get a medal as those relay athletes. That's the nature of the event they have chosen. On the plus side, there are a hell of a lot more opportunities to earn prize money as a road runner than a sprinter at their level, so the scales tip back in their favour on that one.
Not sure why you bring up race permits, since funding comes from money specifically earmarked for funding, given to UKA to dole out and entirely separate from their other activities but... If you spread any profit from the race permits across all clubs it would be a meaningless amount. If clubs believe that they need more money to achieve a particular goal they should either increase their fees (many are less than £1/week), seek out sponsorship or exploit the value that they have - many of the sports centres that clubs operate out of will charge members a fortune for recreational running groups or kids clubs. After school clubs could be another lucrative venture.
But it's easier just to complain about UKA and the relatively small amount of money that they receive...
But a small budget should still be used in the correct way. And that means unbiased. All of these value judgements on who is likely to be an Olympic medallist or not - perhaps the criteria should be opened to being a European medallist or not, including indoors.
I really am failing to see why some athletes are left out and others are rewarded. Eilish McColgan leaves a lower level of funding because her events are too competitive, yet Melissa Courtney-Bryant runs in one of the most competitive events there is, the 1500m and is unlikely to even make the British team never mind medal at the Olympics because there are 3 o4 4 British athletes away ahead of her. Yet she is given funding after a poor year and up and coming Markovic with a European indoor gold medal and Olympic performance is left out. Marc Scott is also highly unlikely to medal in his event, good solid runner though he is. Pozzi and Sawyers are highly unlikely to medal in their events as they are too far behind medal winning performances and have a history of not performing in championships, yet they receive funding.
UKA selection policies have been biased in the past. Kate Reed was selected for the Beijing Olympics because she was having an affair with one of the management. An distance athlete (I forget his name) was left out of a championship one year because of an online spat with golden boy Farah, because the arbitrary criteria of having to run a qualifying time twice in a distance track event was introduced for that year only.
Are there more para athletes now funded than non-para? In the UK, there is such pressure on organisations to be inclusive.
Tried and Trusted wrote:
skepticalpanda wrote:
The relay medals count to the tally just the same. All of those relay teams have a decent chance of a medal at the next World Champs.
As fantastic as Phil and Jake are, they are not as likely to get a medal as those relay athletes. That's the nature of the event they have chosen. On the plus side, there are a hell of a lot more opportunities to earn prize money as a road runner than a sprinter at their level, so the scales tip back in their favour on that one.
Not sure why you bring up race permits, since funding comes from money specifically earmarked for funding, given to UKA to dole out and entirely separate from their other activities but... If you spread any profit from the race permits across all clubs it would be a meaningless amount. If clubs believe that they need more money to achieve a particular goal they should either increase their fees (many are less than £1/week), seek out sponsorship or exploit the value that they have - many of the sports centres that clubs operate out of will charge members a fortune for recreational running groups or kids clubs. After school clubs could be another lucrative venture.
But it's easier just to complain about UKA and the relatively small amount of money that they receive...
But a small budget should still be used in the correct way. And that means unbiased. All of these value judgements on who is likely to be an Olympic medallist or not - perhaps the criteria should be opened to being a European medallist or not, including indoors.
I really am failing to see why some athletes are left out and others are rewarded. Eilish McColgan leaves a lower level of funding because her events are too competitive, yet Melissa Courtney-Bryant runs in one of the most competitive events there is, the 1500m and is unlikely to even make the British team never mind medal at the Olympics because there are 3 o4 4 British athletes away ahead of her. Yet she is given funding after a poor year and up and coming Markovic with a European indoor gold medal and Olympic performance is left out. Marc Scott is also highly unlikely to medal in his event, good solid runner though he is. Pozzi and Sawyers are highly unlikely to medal in their events as they are too far behind medal winning performances and have a history of not performing in championships, yet they receive funding.
UKA selection policies have been biased in the past. Kate Reed was selected for the Beijing Olympics because she was having an affair with one of the management. An distance athlete (I forget his name) was left out of a championship one year because of an online spat with golden boy Farah, because the arbitrary criteria of having to run a qualifying time twice in a distance track event was introduced for that year only.
Are there more para athletes now funded than non-para? In the UK, there is such pressure on organisations to be inclusive.
Who was Reed having an affair with?
Come on….. who?
some of the women in the relays are ranked lower than younger up and coming athletes! who will obviously replace them possibly even next year
https://www.thepowerof10.info/rankings/rankinglist.aspx?event=400&agegroup=ALL&sex=W&year=2021
I don't know if we'll ever know the full details of what happened with Reed but it looks dodgy af and I hope no athletes go through that again.
The "affair" with her coach/senior UKA manager a year before the Games, and then BOA raiding her room at the Olympics during the week of her races to check for PEDs and UKA deciding to do a full fitness workout the day before her 10,000m final??
What exactly was going on?
High hopes wrote:
It's a joke. The UK team choose their favourites and distance runners suffer as there is no Head of Endurance yet who can advocate for them. Jess Judd, McColgan and Amy Eloise Markovc all deserved better. McColgan is currently Britain's best distance runner (male or female) by a long shot.
I saw a tweet implying this. It was fantastic.
https://twitter.com/d9monti/status/1451153188690833412How much is the funding?
parafundin wrote:
Tried and Trusted wrote:
But a small budget should still be used in the correct way. And that means unbiased. All of these value judgements on who is likely to be an Olympic medallist or not - perhaps the criteria should be opened to being a European medallist or not, including indoors.
I really am failing to see why some athletes are left out and others are rewarded. Eilish McColgan leaves a lower level of funding because her events are too competitive, yet Melissa Courtney-Bryant runs in one of the most competitive events there is, the 1500m and is unlikely to even make the British team never mind medal at the Olympics because there are 3 o4 4 British athletes away ahead of her. Yet she is given funding after a poor year and up and coming Markovic with a European indoor gold medal and Olympic performance is left out. Marc Scott is also highly unlikely to medal in his event, good solid runner though he is. Pozzi and Sawyers are highly unlikely to medal in their events as they are too far behind medal winning performances and have a history of not performing in championships, yet they receive funding.
UKA selection policies have been biased in the past. Kate Reed was selected for the Beijing Olympics because she was having an affair with one of the management. An distance athlete (I forget his name) was left out of a championship one year because of an online spat with golden boy Farah, because the arbitrary criteria of having to run a qualifying time twice in a distance track event was introduced for that year only.
Are there more para athletes now funded than non-para? In the UK, there is such pressure on organisations to be inclusive.
Who was Reed having an affair with?
Come on….. who?
We want to know.
Please tell.
Tried and Trusted wrote:
UKA selection policies have been biased in the past. Kate Reed was selected for the Beijing Olympics because she was having an affair with one of the management.
Um, no. Kate Reed was selected for the Olympics because she had the Olympic qualifying standard and was the best for the event. UK:A completely screwed her over by making her run a time trial the evening before the race, and treated her really poorly (including ransacking her room because of a joke she made about something). It's absolutely insane to say UK:A favoured Kate Reed given all of the problems between them at the time. She was anything but favoured.
parafundin wrote:
We want to know.
Please tell.
Grow up.
woofy wrote:
parafundin wrote:
We want to know.
Please tell.
Grow up.
How can you not pursue an allegation such that she got selected because of a relationship with an Uka manager.
Is this why Coates and Symington have just resigned?
What a story !
its all there online wrote:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2008/sep/05/olympics2008.olympicsathletics
Oh dear ; I preferred my reason for the resignations.
Emma Coburn to miss Olympic Trials after breaking ankle in Suzhou
Jakob on Oly 1500- “Walk in the park if I don’t get injured or sick”
VALBY has graduated (w/ honors) from Florida, will she go to grad school??
1:49.84 - 800m Freshmen National Record - Cooper Lutkenhaus (check this kick out!!)
Congrats to Kyle Merber - Merber has left Citius for position w/ Michael Johnson's track league
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion