Emily Pidgeon out of World Juniors?

Pantman wrote:

Surely it is UKA's job to get her there doing the event she wants with the build she wants.

...with the build up she wants.

Hey Pants.

Link to times article here, scroll to the bottom explains part of it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7713-2293669,00.html

Seems shes been virtually forced to withdraw.

If, as seems likely, she is the only athlete in the country who does not sign the contract with UKA, what does that say about her and her support team ?

Did Paula Radcliffe refuse to travel with the team at Emily's age, or Colin Jackson ? In fact can you name any junior athlete who has not travelled with the team to any major championship in UKA history ?

We should also bear in mind that the World Juniors were not top of Team Pidgeons targets for the season - the European Champs in Gothenburg were their first option but Emily missed the development time by 1 second at Solihull.

It says that nobody else is in a position to turn down the funding. As I understand it, the contract gives UKA sway over what races are run, who coaches the athletes and, to some degree as a result, what training they do. That is way, way over the line that any governing body should tread.

But has Paula signed it? I thought she hadn't.

I think it is wise legally not to get tied to such a contract.

Fair point, but is travelling with the team the issue? Was it not suitability of training venue before the competition? To turn up at the venue with the team immediately before is one thing, to be told how to train (location, etc) in the crucial pre-race week (or more??) is quite another. Did Paula et al have such impositions?

I do not know - can someone clarify on these issues?

So do you think she (and her camp) are not bothered by this? Clearly they are interested in bigger things than world juniors long term, but surely that would be a nice addition to the CV when nobody's future success is ever assured?

I do not believe that so many athletes would have signed the contract if it meant that that UKA had the role you suggest. I coach an athlete on funding and the reality is that he (or rather I am) is expected to provide an outline racing plan for the season, and that plan should show that the athlete is aiming for the major events i.e. the World Juniors in Emilys case.

As for the training plan, I produce an outline, and that is enough.

If the athlete starts to run very badly I would expect to discuss the situation with the UKA appointed Performance Manager, and at that stage we might all look at the daily training sessions more carefully. If the PM is somebody I respect then I would be very happy to discuss the situation.

I think that the Juniors are going to Macau, which has to be better than Beijing to prepare. BOA Staff have endorsed Macau, the air quality is much better, there are better training facilities, and UKA's support staff will be there i.e. Docs and physios . The rest of the team accept the venue. I dont see how it can be dismissed without a visit, so unless Team Pidgeon have been there I think they are rejecting the principle and not the venue.

Paula would have gone to Macau and I believe that I have read that she thinks Emily should sign the UKA contract and go to Macau.

It is far too early to start being bothered by bigger things than the World Juniors. These are Emilys World Champs and when she withdrew from the World Cross she said it was to concentrate on Beijing. Then she (or somebody else) decided that Gothenburg was a better idea that Beijing.

My concern is that the political argument against UKA is getting in the way of Emilys career. She should be in Beijing, she isnt. The contract situation tells all - I firmly believe that she will be the only UK athlete not to sign up, and how can that be ? What is so special about a 17 year old that prevents her from signing a contract that Jo Pavey, Jon Brown, Mo Farah, Nick McCormick etc etc are all able to sign.

There is something very wrong here and I am not certain what it is.

Pidgeon fancier wrote:

I think that the Juniors are going to Macau, which has to be better than Beijing to prepare. BOA Staff have endorsed Macau, the air quality is much better, there are better training facilities, and UKA's support staff will be there i.e. Docs and physios . The rest of the team accept the venue. I dont see how it can be dismissed without a visit, so unless Team Pidgeon have been there I think they are rejecting the principle and not the venue.

Macau is too far from Beijing and that is why Emily is reluctant to prepare there. The conditions there do not accurately simulate what things will be like in Beijing, and is that not the point of a preparation camp? To prepare the athletes for the conditions they will expect to face competition time? It hasn't been dismissed because of the princile, it has been rejected because of the reasons above.

I honestly hope this mess is sorted out quickly though, or UK could lose one of their most talented ever youngsters.

The first reason to use a holding camp is to allow athletes to adjust to the time change.

The second consideration is to adjust to the changed climatic conditions. Macau does that without subjecting the athlete to the poor air quality to be found in Beijing.

I doubt that Macau is perfect. Where would you go to adjust that is closer that Macau ?

If going straight in to Beijing is the right answer then we can expect to see all of our (and every other countries) Olympic teams finish their preparations in Beijing, but none will.

Have you ever tried to train in Beijing ?

Having read the article in AW last week there has obviously been an ongoing dispute between the administration and Emily's support team for some time (several years). For me she is a great talent but has recieved a hell of a lot of press attention as have her coach and her father, far more than other equally talented runners of her age (Sian Edwards performance at WXC was arguably better than anything Emily has achieved). Her father seems to have made a massive deal out of the contracts issue, as previous posters have said other top athletes with far more to lose have signed up, it was interesting to point out that the only other athlete in dispute with UKA was Sarah Hopkinson and her support group, and surprise surprise she is part of the same club, back up team, coach. I'm all for junior athletes preparing in as professional a way as possible to reach the top level but some of the stories which come out of this group just seem a little intense for what essentially is a kids training group. Being taken out of school to go to altitude trips at age 14/15, sponsorship deals at the same age, newspaper stories, its all a little intense for me. I stood next to some of her supporters at Solihull during the BMC meet when Emily ran against Sian Edwards and the intensity was very evident, I know there is a lot on the line, world juniors, qualifying marks etc... but I find it hard to believe that these kids will be able to handle the attention, pressure and obvious intensity into a senior career.

Before you going blaming UKA you should be careful of the facts you dont know and the trouble she -well her team has been causing with silly nit picking and complaining all of which got completely thrown out by an outside agency and told them basically their complaints were a load of rubbish. If only you knew what and who she has complained about you woulndt be so supportive of their case.

I agree, for those who dont know what has been going on, honestly take out word for it you wouldn't be so supportive of her if you did. I knwo in most cases its her team whose causing the problem but the complaints had to start with someone.

Go back to when the world x was on and she didnt go even though the team stood a real good chance of picking up a medal with her in, she said she was preparing for the world kuniors and yet all along her intentions have been the europeans. We allknow now that her real reasons for not going to the world x would have meant too long away from her coach who unfortunatley is brain washing her and he is too worried that if someone else manages to speak to her for too long they will maanage to make her see ssense

Not one of our top athletes has made such a fuss about these contracts, they've signed them

Paula has signed it, pavey has signed it, yellings have signed it. If they can sign it then why on earth cant she, Im sorry but she's not yet above their standards.

Paula would have always stayed in the team camp, travelled with the team camp, represented her country at given hances when she was Emilys age. Wht's more she would also have helped her team out at the world x in trying to get that medal.

I think we have a huge case of one athlete way too big for her boots.

I agree,just sign it, shut up, and get on with it.

I think that Powell has got that wrong or has been mislead. I understood that they wanted to go to Beijing to prepare, not stay at home.

Can anybody tell me why we are only hearing one side of this story re the dispute ? Why are there never any explanations from UKA re the Pidgeon situation, only interviews with Emily, her father or Farrow ?

If Emily doesnt run in Beijing, which looks likely, then she has missed two World Championships in 6 months. Surely that cant be in the best interest of an emerging international ?

look at onrunning.com

One point to add. Dave Collins says (link below) that this base will be used as a holding base for the 2007 World CHamps in Osaka and the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Where does that leave Emily PIdgeon? I hope both sides manage to get together and reach some sort of agreement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/08/01/soathl01.xml

Its been their choice each time to miss the particular champs, I agree with reason for missing world cross about being away from coach, but also i reckon they were worried sian would have beaten her.

The world juniors i believe they didnt let the selectors know what event she wanted to be in, then when they put her in an event they complained and wanted it changed - fair enough, Why the 3k - why not the 5 or might it be a young girl called sian might cause her a problem in that race an knock her off her mantle of being queen.

Her camp are causing a lot of people to be turned off Emily which is a huge shame but they are bringing it on themselves. At the 3a's -where she got lapped- unforunately the majority of people I spoke to and were sat around were hoping for her to fail, is this what her camp want?

That is just the public facade of the issue, Collins using his words carefully to ensure he is legally sound.

I want to know what is really happening and why. Are the allegations made by Farrow, against UKA, fair and reasonable or does he have a different agenda, if so why ? He seems to have been at loggerheads with UKA since Emily was very young and he wanted her to race distances that UKA rules didnt allow. Is this just a continuation of the same battle ?

I dont know exactly how good this young lady can be, but I would like to see her given every reasonable chance to prove herself and this doesnt appear to be happening.