Hahaha! Head Coach, Team Leader, Team Manager, Technical Manager, Media Attache, Head of Delegation AND CEO??!
What the f#ck do these people do? Something more important than having representation in the marathon, I guess?
I come from a swimming background, which was equally bad. It was like trials were set up specifically to exclude swimmers who had made A standards and could have competed.
So at least Canadian sport bodies are consistent in being anti-athlete.
grizzled dude wrote:
Hahaha! Head Coach, Team Leader, Team Manager, Technical Manager, Media Attache, Head of Delegation AND CEO??!
What the f#ck do these people do? Something more important than having representation in the marathon, I guess?
Well I haven't been on a national team, nor do I ever expect to be. But I have heard from people who have been that these positions are pretty well used.
World Champs also include major IAAF meetings. For some reason the IAAF consider Canada a strong member (hosted 2001 World's and numerous other IAAF champs) and it is therefore crucial to have folks like the CEO at these meetings.
Media attache - gee, we'll bitch and complain that the domestic media doesn't give the sport any coverage and then we bitch and complain when there is someone sent whose job is to further that domestic media coverage. Which alternative do you want?
Team manager/technical managers - apparently there are all kinds of issues that the athletes face such as meals, transportation to the training facilities, to the meet itself, passes, special medical needs, dealing with the locals (big when there is the language issue), accommodation concerns, equipment problems, official dealings (protests if there are rule problems, etc).
Sure, these athletes are all adults and should be expected to expend any effort required to worry about all the minute details of a major championship and then also be ready to compete at their very best.
I'm sure there are more roles and duties these folks are required for that I can't recall off the top of my head. I guess I could just go with your well explained argument as to why they are all a waste, or I could go with the explanations of both coaches and athletes who have been there and done that and have backed up the need for these people.
I've also yet to see anyone provide any real evidence that there is actually a choice being made between sending a support person and an competing athlete. I've never heard of the funding system being set up that way, but am open to anyone genuinely presenting evidence of such.
Thanks for your informed post.
The money comes from one pot, right? Theoretically, couldn't one less support staff (or three) make it easier for AC to relax their harsh standards?
grizzled dude wrote:
The money comes from one pot, right?
I don't want to speak for the financing of AC since I'm not currently privy to the details.
Theoretically, couldn't one less support staff (or three) make it easier for AC to relax their harsh standards?
Theoretically that may be true. But I understand funding is given based on the ratios of how many top placers there are versus how many athletes there are. Take a few athletes who mostly place high, and you've got a good ratio. Take many athletes, most of whom don't place high, and you've got a poor ratio. I'm not saying I agree with this philosophy, but that is what I understand the system to be.
Presumably the number of 'support' personnel are not included when it comes to calculating those ratios.
Regardless of how small a team you take, there is still a basic number of 'support' people that are needed. I'm sure you've noticed in Olympic opening ceremonies all the small teams with double the number of officials to athletes.