Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coe approached over 'catastropic' UK Athletics regime.

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

  • #31
    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      Yes, lovesprints - what are you doing bringing your balanced, reasonable and thoughtful contributions to this message board? Shame on you - this is the internet!!

      Comment


      • #33
        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.😁😂🤣

        Comment


        • LoveSprints1
          LoveSprints1 commented
          Editing a comment
          Not you @phillipo for sure! 👊🏽

      • #34
        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?

        Comment


        • Laps
          Laps commented
          Editing a comment
          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.

      • #35
        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

        Comment


        • Laps
          Laps commented
          Editing a comment
          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.

        • jjimbojames
          jjimbojames commented
          Editing a comment
          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.

      • #36
        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.

        Comment


        • #37
          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.

          Comment


          • #38
            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!

            Comment


            • #39
              I must admit I'm getting pretty fed up by the hints of bigotry that appear from time to time around the administration of UKA etc.

              I can't believe anyone in this day and age can post "Could there be some males appointed??" and think that that is any way a reasonable thought.

              Too many in the sport saw "Netball = woman = useless" it seems to me that Coates was never going to be onto a winner. If she was crap, she was crap; get rid - I've got no argument with that. The fact that she's a woman has nothing to do with it, and the fact that she came from a sport which only caters for women has nothing to do with it. And yet those seem to be the main reasons why plenty of old timer, Mail / Express reading bigots turned against her from the word go.

              Philipo's absolute nonsensical tirade about toughing up athletes through abuse is downright outrageous, and yet I've no doubt that those sorts of views are held by a significant number amongst the athlete community.

              It's precisely the sort of thing that Salazar was sanctioned for when it was uncovered in relation to Mary Cain, and rightly so. It seems Philipo would have quite happily tolerated that sort of behaviour as clearly you can't perform well as an athlete without being able to sustain signifcant levels of abuse, especially if you are woman.

              I hope they get someone good to lead athletics. They don't need to be a former athlete, a former athletics coach, a former athletics administrator. Some of that would undoubtedly enhance a CV, but the fundamentals are that they have to be an outstanding sports admininstrator, capable of bring in experts in the sport they oversee and challenging them to produce their best.

              And whether they male, female, non-binary, black, white, gay, straight, or any combination should not make the blind bit of difference in the world of 2021 where woke is good, right, appropriate, admirable, and not something to insult people with.

              Comment


              • #40
                larkim

                Woke may be good, right, appropriate, admirable and not something to insult people with in your eyes. The problem is that social justice and woke has degenerated into identity politics which are fundamentally at odds with the meritocratic systems on which our society has been based. You cannot have equality AND meritocracy applying to the same areas in the real world. Do you want diversity quotas or do you want to pick the best for the job? Do you want equality or do you want to reward ability and hard work? You cannot have both. Equality and diversity in many things are good. Stretch the principles too far and absurdity breaks through as it is doing in various areas of British society now. This is when the 'bigots' have a field day.. The flaws are only too obvious.

                How did Joanna Coates get into trouble? Quotas for women coaches would not have helped in a meritocracy like Athletics? Welfare before medals, when the whole sport is busting its gut to win medals? I know little about Athletic's internal politics but the alarm bells would have been sounding quite early. Clearly there were enough elite athletes and coaches very unhappy with the way things were going.

                Athletics has to make a choice about who leads them. Whichever way it goes will peeve some group or other. That's what happens when identity politics takes hold. The choosers tread on eggshells and the choice is more likely to be a political one than picking the best person for the job. In this case one with an understanding and appreciation of the sport.

                Comment


                • larkim
                  larkim commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I don't entirely disagree. I do hate the fact that "woke" is used as an insult though, when it should actually be the default behaviour of everyone. I'd like to think that almost nobody thinks that it should be medals above all else, and of course there is a judgement to be made. The challenge is in debating that middle ground in a grown up manner (which I believe you do, as do most on here). It's just that there are some that don't, and I really think they should be called out for it and completely sidelined.

                • marra
                  marra commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Without trying to get too far off topic, the idea that the UK is truly a genuinely meritocratic system is...debateable. The system - as with almost any system in the world of any kind - is tilted in favour of certain groups (rich, privately educated etc). That's precisely why those who would argue in favour of quotas might do so with some justification - because they don't believe that the system as is DOES reward the best for the job or hard work/ability.

                  That doesn't mean those who the system is tilted in favour of cannot be deserving of their position, but I'm not convinced we're yet at the point where we can safely say that all are.

                • Laps
                  Laps commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Fair comment marra, although those who are unsuccessful will frequently claim the system is tilted against them with no factual justification.
                  Unfortunately we live in an age where claiming 'victimhood' or disadvantage is used to achieve goals whatever the merits and consequences. Emotions are played on before rational thought kicks in. If it ever does. That's how I see woke.

                  Recommend a book called "Blueprint. How DNA makes us who we are" by Robert Plomin. Nature (including merit) is powerful in asserting over time whatever the individual's starting point in society, it turns out.

              • #41
                New UK Athletics chair to give athletes direct say in how governing body is run | Athletics | The Guardian

                Ian Beattie quoted as saying the crisis in UK Athletics was before Coates and Symington resigned

                Comment


                • #42
                  Please , Philipo : don't spoil this board with personal abuse. You've always been civil to me , though we often disagree ; and I don't have a problem with your sometimes rather "vigorous" arguments. No need to resort to insults because larkim takes exception to your views , is there ?

                  I'd say the same to those who might be on the other side of the argument , should they overstep. Attack the argument , not the man , eh ? Let's keep this a place where we can exchange views freely ...

                  Comment


                  • larkim
                    larkim commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Looks like I missed something :-) Should have popped in here more frequently...

                    I will accept that I named names in terms of identifying Philipo as an example of the attitudes I find problematic, so I am thick skinned enough to take ad hominem attacks on the back of that. Wish I could see what was written now...

                • #43
                  Originally posted by larkim View Post
                  I must admit I'm getting pretty fed up by the hints of bigotry that appear from time to time around the administration of UKA etc.

                  I can't believe anyone in this day and age can post "Could there be some males appointed??" and think that that is any way a reasonable thought.

                  Too many in the sport saw "Netball = woman = useless" it seems to me that Coates was never going to be onto a winner. If she was crap, she was crap; get rid - I've got no argument with that. The fact that she's a woman has nothing to do with it, and the fact that she came from a sport which only caters for women has nothing to do with it. And yet those seem to be the main reasons why plenty of old timer, Mail / Express reading bigots turned against her from the word go.

                  Philipo's absolute nonsensical tirade about toughing up athletes through abuse is downright outrageous, and yet I've no doubt that those sorts of views are held by a significant number amongst the athlete community.

                  It's precisely the sort of thing that Salazar was sanctioned for when it was uncovered in relation to Mary Cain, and rightly so. It seems Philipo would have quite happily tolerated that sort of behaviour as clearly you can't perform well as an athlete without being able to sustain signifcant levels of abuse, especially if you are woman.

                  I hope they get someone good to lead athletics. They don't need to be a former athlete, a former athletics coach, a former athletics administrator. Some of that would undoubtedly enhance a CV, but the fundamentals are that they have to be an outstanding sports admininstrator, capable of bring in experts in the sport they oversee and challenging them to produce their best.

                  And whether they male, female, non-binary, black, white, gay, straight, or any combination should not make the blind bit of difference in the world of 2021 where woke is good, right, appropriate, admirable, and not something to insult people with.
                  Agree with what you said above, I had only recently unblocked philipo but will reverse that poor decision
                  Last edited by LoveSprints1; 04-11-21, 23:31.

                  Comment


                  • #44
                    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.
                    Will not be missed... ah, a comedian!. I will listen to the views of Christie, Radcliffe, Athletes commission chair and others more than the feeble stuff we are hearing on this forum about those greasy pole climbers, netball and cycling experts no doubt who have been so effective in screwing up crucial aspects of athletics in the UK. Lets talk much more about coaching excellence and respect and reward for them, instead of this endless self obsessed stuff about "safeguarding".

                    Comment


                    • #45
                      I think it is a bit simplistic to assume that people have been employed with a background from other sports, and it is them who have messed things up, as I suspect there may have been issues predating their appointments. However, I will say that athletics is quite a complex sport in terms of set-up with its wide variety of events (which are almost sports in their own right) and levels, and I think it is difficult for an 'outsider' to get to grips with that aspect of it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X