Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coe approached over 'catastropic' UK Athletics regime.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jjimbojames
    replied
    I think it’s likely a bit of both - which is why some will succeed whomever is in charge. I think the athletes’ biggest issue with Coates’ seems to be she set her stall out on “athlete first” and then not sticking to it, eg finding out you’re coming off funding an hour before it goes to the internet. That said, athletes not close to the criteria should probably be asking questions way before that point - it is them most affected, after all.

    Coaches / coaching pathways has been an issue for as long as I can remember!

    Leave a comment:


  • marra
    replied
    I don't disagree about the necessity of funding and the focus on medals. But therefore doesn't that mean that less of the blame should be directed here at the administrators? If they are providing funding and leeway for athletes/coaches to plan what is best for the athlete to be in peak condition for key championships - rather than asking them to do what is best to market the sport or similar - aren't they fulfilling their remit?

    Again, I'm not saying that because I specifically believe it, but I'm hearing a lot of complaints on twitter about athletes unhappy with the governing body, but very little detail about what should be done differently or, indeed, what the governing body was doing so terribly.

    As someone on the outside of things, it somewhat feels like a bunch of people who know that they are potentially underperforming and are looking for easy targets elsewhere rather than engaging in introspection.

    Leave a comment:


  • trickstat
    commented on 's reply
    It's even more tenuous than asking the PM to sort out a local Conservative council because they happen to be from the same party. Or the Leader of the Opposition for a Labour council for balance.

  • jjimbojames
    commented on 's reply
    Absolutely - the rationale is clear. It’s why I find some athletes complaining about not getting funding slightly bizarre, as they aren’t at that level.

  • Laps
    commented on 's reply
    You can call it a flaw or you can say it rightly concentrates on one objective. After all lottery funding of sports was born from winning just 1 gold medal in Atlanta and it is quite possible to see us going back to those days without a focused approach to use of the money.

    What else a governing body should be doing is another matter.

  • Laps
    commented on 's reply
    So far as I can see UKA make the minimum demands on the elite athletes they can. To the governing body by far the most important thing about funding is keeping UK Sport on board. Which means winning sufficient medals. Therefore they will tend to avoid other demands that may mean disruption of plans and training programmes and possibly injuries for which they would no doubt get blamed. The deal comes down to money for every effort to win medals in major championships.

  • trickstat
    replied
    Originally posted by philipo
    Comfortable with abuse??? You views are nuts, lovesprints.You and your ilk are screwing up sport really well.
    here.
    Is there a coach in any sport on this planet who hasn't bollocked his athlete for something or other they did wrong? If they did that's there job ..
    The best coaches tend to know when to bollock an athlete and when a different approach is needed. For example, bellowing "well that was ******** rubbish" at an athlete every time they perform below their best isn't going to help much unless, perhaps, lack of effort was the main problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • jjimbojames
    replied
    That’s one of the flaws of funding - you get it once you’ve been successful (so more likely to get sponsorship deals) but to stay on it, you need to focus on just the WC/OG - ironically, making people compete at eg ETC would go against the point of funding.

    Maybe a better system would be to reduce the total pot given to those funded, and help the stars with physio etc, but also keep some money back to reward people turning out at ETC, or pumping funds into National League etc, so that more depth is created, and allow that to push people on to the next level, a la women’s middle distance

    Leave a comment:


  • marra
    replied
    Originally posted by Occasional Hope View Post
    Safeguarding is crucially important.

    But it's clear that Coates and Symington didn't have the confidence of athletes and will not be missed. I hope the new selection process will be more effective.
    Should athletes confidence matter? Do the athletes have the best interests of the sport at heart, or the best interests of themselves? Is the latter, is that good or bad?

    Personally, I would argue that coaches and athletes are sometimes given too much leeway. The athletes are the faces of the sport. The European Team Championships, for example, haven't always had the teams in them that they could. Which makes it harder for the governing body to sell that to broadcasters. With the best will in the world, no casual fan cares about seeing the 7th best 400m runner, or similar. They want to see the stars. I get that it doesn't necessarily fit around the schedule some athletes/coaches want. But shouldn't funding work both ways?

    Leave a comment:


  • philipo
    replied
    Originally posted by Sovietvest View Post
    Yes, lovesprints - what are you doing bringing your balanced, reasonable and thoughtful contributions to this message board? Shame on you - this is the internet!!
    balanced, reasonable and thoughtful ???? who is that then.😁😂🤣

    Leave a comment:


  • Sovietvest
    replied
    Yes, lovesprints - what are you doing bringing your balanced, reasonable and thoughtful contributions to this message board? Shame on you - this is the internet!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Occasional Hope
    replied
    Safeguarding is crucially important.

    But it's clear that Coates and Symington didn't have the confidence of athletes and will not be missed. I hope the new selection process will be more effective.

    Leave a comment:


  • LoveSprints1
    replied
    Originally posted by philipo View Post
    we all know it's the coaches; always was, is and will be. No matter how far back you go, Percy Cerutty, Stampfl and dozens of others in the last 30 years, all over the world, were greatly effective, and until our coaches are respected, given their heads and get the remuneration they deserve, rather than the current mode of penalising coaches who are a bit nasty to their athletes when necessary, we won't improve in any significant way.
    That useless woman, Coates is gone; that's a bit of an improvement.!!
    Sorry philipo You really think it's acceptable, and that athletics would be better off if coaches are comfortable being "a bit nasty to their athletes when necessary"? It's called emotional and verbal abuse, is against the coaching code of conduct and has undermined and crushed many talented athletes. What planet do you live on?

    I don't think Coates was 'useless'. She inherited a poisoned chalice at a very difficult time. She was not supported and yes, made some errors but has also made great strides in terms of safeguarding, showing a level of respect to athletes and coaches and listening to the wider athletics community.

    The Olympic results were disappointing because we won no golds, but we had no gold medal hopes bar relays. Even lovely Dina would have been hard-pressed to medal even if fit.





    Last edited by LoveSprints1; 03-11-21, 11:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • philipo
    replied
    we all know its the coaches; always was , is and will be. No matter how far back you go, Percy Cerutty, Stampfl and dozens of others in the last 30 years , all over the world,were greatly effective, and until our coaches are respected, given their heads and get the remuneration they deserve, rather than the current mode of penalising coaches who are a bit nasty to their athletes when necessary, we won't improve in any significant way.
    That useless woman, Coates is gone; that's a bit of an improvement.!!

    Leave a comment:


  • marra
    replied
    Originally posted by treadwater1 View Post
    It looks more like Symington was poached by BC rather than being pushed out going by the hastily put out press statement from UKA earlier today. Out of the frying pan and into the fire if you ask me, I can’t see how she will avoid the level of scrutiny she got at the helm of UKA, Symington being a cycling person may help with the transition though
    Time will tell, as with most things, but it is of course entirely plausible that she isn't trying to avoid scrutiny but simply wanted out of a sport that, frankly, to an outsider seems to be in a complete mess all over the show and move to an organisation that - generally speaking - appears well run, high achieving and where people seem to be appreciated more and criticised less...

    Clearly the Shane Sutton saga (amongst other things) shows that BC is not without its problems, but if I were in a position to work for one or the other, I know which I would choose right now!

    I hope I'm wrong but the idea that everything flawed with British athletics (as in the wider sport) right now will be fixed by the removal of these two people at UKA seems like very wishful thinking.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X