Focusing on those who can win medals and giving them the funding is fine for a cash-strapped entity like UK Athletics. But not sending full teams? That's ridiculous.
The Olympics are more than about wins and losses. You should send everyone that you can. If $ are an issue, I've got a simple solution - let the athletes (or their sponsors) pay their own way.
I've never believed that not sending the guy lucky to make the 10k team has any impact whatsoever on a star like Mo Farah.
In fact in Rio in 2016, Mo Farah was 1st, Andy Vernon 25th and and Ross Millington 31st for Team GBR. There were only 32 finishers. Vernong and Millington being there didn't hurt Farah's morale (fun fact, for the record Millington did beat Mo Ahmed who was DFL).
In 2012, Christ Thompson got next to last int he 10,000 that Farah won.
Very short sighted which is disappointing. They seem to have completely overlooked the fact that young athletes early in their career who are on the up but not necessarily quite at the level of been a medal contender at the Olympics/World Champs benefit vastly by still going and competing. They learn so much from that experience and often come back for the next championship and medal. Take for example Nick Willis. Competed at the 2004 Olympics at age 21 and got eliminated in the semis. Came back 4 years later in 2008 and got the silver and then the bronze in 2016.
This policy will just drive those who have potential to be medal contenders away from what is already an unforgiving sport, and as other posts have pointed out it deprives those of valuable championship experience where lessons are learned through failure. It really shows how tone deaf the top level of the sport is in the UK. The sub elite level of the sport is thriving with many attractive, spectator friendly races like night of the 10ks where as the top level British championships have become a stale and boring spectacle with empty stadiums, hollow sponsorship and a none-existent atmosphere. Even 15 years a go when I was competing it was in decline, now I’d rather compete in one of the evening 5k races that have beer and pizza at the venue rather than the boring British champs 5k. UKA should be capitalizing on this and funneling athletes through, giving them opportunities to bridge the gap between sub-elite and elite not putting up blockers that are going to turn people away. There needs to be a sensible discussion about what the purpose of British Athletics in the UK is. Do we want funding and opportunities to be concentrated on a small few of established athletes whose careers last at the top between 3-8 years max, or do we want to create an inclusive sport that offers hope and opportunity, creates conditions for those who might be late bloomers and hard workers to thrive and mix it with the best. Top level British athletics does nothing for the wider British society and has bread a culture of ‘full time only’ which are symptoms of these sort of policies. When athletes who work are on the cusp and can see the rewards round the corner it pushes them to raise their game. If the policy is now you've got to be an elite to go to a major champs then why would anyone who has a job bother. The Olympic legacy from 2012 has proven to be an abject failure and policies like these will continue to turn people away from the sport.
this policy will do nothing but kill the sport. there are levels to everything, and they are destroying a HUGE level that people aspire to.
think of all the people who aspire for that olympic trials marathon qualifying times. and the people below them who they inspire and on and on. If the only level to aspire to is the very best in the world, the sport will not be better off.
i think their idea is that it sets the bar higher and those people who are satisfied to just make the team will reach higher levels. there is logic to this, but i just think it kills the sport, and you will lose more than you gain
"if you take those people to the Olympics, their teachers, relatives, club mates, neighbors all become fans."
I guess that's why after all those years of sending full teams the sport is so popular?
Track and field is the most popular sport in Unites States high schools, with over a million participants. That is achieved with a tiny fraction of the marketing, media attention and financing that other sports get.
"if you take those people to the Olympics, their teachers, relatives, club mates, neighbors all become fans."
I guess that's why after all those years of sending full teams the sport is so popular?
Track and field is the most popular sport in Unites States high schools, with over a million participants. That is achieved with a tiny fraction of the marketing, media attention and financing that other sports get.
Anybody, from any country, who has qualified and has met the standards, should be allowed to compete.
The men's 100m standard for Budapest is 10 flat. At the last WC it was 10.05. How are they going to "compete" if they need everyone running 9.7-8 to completely blow it?
Track and field is the most popular sport in Unites States high schools, with over a million participants. That is achieved with a tiny fraction of the marketing, media attention and financing that other sports get.
What the H does high school participation numbers have to do with the popularity of a pro sport? The answer is nothing, as proven by that survey.
Right, correlation doesn't imply causation. On my high school team back in the day, the only Olympian all of us had heard of was Carl Lewis. And Mary Lou Retton. It turns out that Jim Spivey's sister taught at our school and invited him to speak to us my senior year. It was cool to get to meet him and hear him speak, but none of us had ever heard of him before that night.
I bet the same holds true today, that Centro could walk into any random high school meet and get recognized by only a handful of people, and most of them would be parents or coaches. Maybe not at all the same for someone like Farah in the UK, but then he was the sole focus of medal hopes for several years. That would be the equivalent of Carl Lewis walking into a track meet at my high school, he'd get mobbed. So no, there's probably negligible effect from sending full teams or not on the popularity of the sport at its level of highest participation.
There might be a gradual eroding of development post-collegiately, it's not like most who already have long odds of making the UK or US team will suddenly decide they don't even want to try to get to the OT and compete there. It'll probably lead to those who have tried a few times and either made one team or never made the team to retire earlier. Those who enjoy it will want to continue trying for the OT and otherwise competing on the domestic circuit. Hell, Sara Hall hasn't made a USA OG team in 5 tries and she's still going at it.
Honestly, what great thing came from Riley, Abdi, Sally, and Aliphine competing in Tokyo/Sapporo? I won't say it's a bad thing to send a full team, but I see the merits in using limited-and-shrinking funding more wisely in sending a leaner team. Now if only they'll funnel the savings back into functional development programs rather than extra perks for the fat cat admin.
UKA has been trying to do this for years. It was wrong minded then and it remains so now. Operating like a third world NGB is short sighted and will cost them medals in the end. It is sad to watch the destruction of a once proud federation
If King Charles does anything less than removing the officials responsible and jailing them, he has failed to live upto his obligations per the Magna Carta. The US must use its military presence to take over UK athletics if he fails to act. Worst case, we will make Britain go to its rightful station, an American colony.
Do you or do you not agree drugs are a part of the sport and that genie is not going back in the bottle? If so, maybe it’s best to let the very elite elite play in that realm, and discourage the rest from thinking of going down that road.
It is a waste of money. Why bring Joe Soap from Doncaster because he managed to break 28 minutes for 10,000m on an indoor track with superspikes when all you need to do is bring Mo Farah and he will probably get bronze in the thon next year and Bekele will already be sipping Champagne on top of the Eiffel Tower when Joe Soap crosses the line
It is a waste of money. Why bring Joe Soap from Doncaster because he managed to break 28 minutes for 10,000m on an indoor track with superspikes when all you need to do is bring Mo Farah and he will probably get bronze in the thon next year and Bekele will already be sipping Champagne on top of the Eiffel Tower when Joe Soap crosses the line
It is a waste of money. Why bring Joe Soap from Doncaster because he managed to break 28 minutes for 10,000m on an indoor track with superspikes when all you need to do is bring Mo Farah and he will probably get bronze in the thon next year and Bekele will already be sipping Champagne on top of the Eiffel Tower when Joe Soap crosses the line
Hey! What'd I ever do to you?
Nothing. You can go to the Olympics. Just ask Prince Harry to return the taxpayers money he ran away with to America
This policy will just drive those who have potential to be medal contenders away from what is already an unforgiving sport, and as other posts have pointed out it deprives those of valuable championship experience where lessons are learned through failure. It really shows how tone deaf the top level of the sport is in the UK. The sub elite level of the sport is thriving with many attractive, spectator friendly races like night of the 10ks where as the top level British championships have become a stale and boring spectacle with empty stadiums, hollow sponsorship and a none-existent atmosphere. Even 15 years a go when I was competing it was in decline, now I’d rather compete in one of the evening 5k races that have beer and pizza at the venue rather than the boring British champs 5k. UKA should be capitalizing on this and funneling athletes through, giving them opportunities to bridge the gap between sub-elite and elite not putting up blockers that are going to turn people away. There needs to be a sensible discussion about what the purpose of British Athletics in the UK is. Do we want funding and opportunities to be concentrated on a small few of established athletes whose careers last at the top between 3-8 years max, or do we want to create an inclusive sport that offers hope and opportunity, creates conditions for those who might be late bloomers and hard workers to thrive and mix it with the best. Top level British athletics does nothing for the wider British society and has bread a culture of ‘full time only’ which are symptoms of these sort of policies. When athletes who work are on the cusp and can see the rewards round the corner it pushes them to raise their game. If the policy is now you've got to be an elite to go to a major champs then why would anyone who has a job bother. The Olympic legacy from 2012 has proven to be an abject failure and policies like these will continue to turn people away from the sport.
I have to agree. It's a crappy deal. You work your backside off for Queen and Country and what's the thanks you get? Sorry Lad or Lassie, we don't think you have a chance to medal so we're keeping you home. But we do thank you for amusing us while trying though.