Very good. Dont send tourists. Should extend this to anyone who has no chance at all. For example in the female 5k If you cant run 14:30 you really are without chance. Whether you Run 15:00 or 18:00 really is the Same result
How can a 20.50 shot putter be called a tourist.
A full time job for a once in a generation athlete
UKA will kill the sport .
Because he is? At the last olympics you needed 2m more to get a medal. Thats a lot at that level. He would effectively be a tourist. European championships would be more appropriate. Athletes seem very entitled. most workers need to actually achieve something when send on a working trip.
A full time job for a once in a generation athlete
UKA will kill the sport .
Because he is? At the last olympics you needed 2m more to get a medal. Thats a lot at that level. He would effectively be a tourist. European championships would be more appropriate. Athletes seem very entitled. most workers need to actually achieve something when send on a working trip.
Such would go with full concentration and application. This is not a tourist.
Have you any idea how hard a best of a generation athlete has to work to get this far.
The UK is a poor country now. They need to make these cuts. Tbf this athlete is very far from medal-potential, effectively a tourist. UKA doesn't support tourists.
Great attitude. We should adopt this line of thinking in the US too, right? Young Sydney was running 54's in the 400H in 2016. She didn't even make it to the finals in Rio. She was a solid 2 seconds off of the podium. Practically a tourist.
So I guess we can have exceptions for young, promising athletes. So older, more experienced athletes who have worked hard for years, sacrificing all that they have to in order to be at or near the top of their sport, finally qualifies for a World Champ or Olympic team but we tell them "sorry, you won't medal anyway so you're efforts were for naught."
Just looked up the Lina’s results and she actually ran under the standard right before the qualifying period opened. So it is not like she has never shown the potential to be under this time. She literally did it last year.
The people claiming cause she’s 27 she’s an over the hill tourist are just as pathetic as UKA.
The UK is a poor country now. They need to make these cuts. Tbf this athlete is very far from medal-potential, effectively a tourist. UKA doesn't support tourists.
Great attitude. We should adopt this line of thinking in the US too, right? Young Sydney was running 54's in the 400H in 2016. She didn't even make it to the finals in Rio. She was a solid 2 seconds off of the podium. Practically a tourist.
So I guess we can have exceptions for young, promising athletes. So older, more experienced athletes who have worked hard for years, sacrificing all that they have to in order to be at or near the top of their sport, finally qualifies for a World Champ or Olympic team but we tell them "sorry, you won't medal anyway so you're efforts were for naught."
Great way to grow the sport.
Yes. Dont waste public money on people without potential. Use it to support athletes with a future. Grow the sport? There are not even 100 people who want to see a mediocre shot putter. Everyone comes to see someone like keely
Because he is? At the last olympics you needed 2m more to get a medal. Thats a lot at that level. He would effectively be a tourist. European championships would be more appropriate. Athletes seem very entitled. most workers need to actually achieve something when send on a working trip.
Such would go with full concentration and application. This is not a tourist.
Have you any idea how hard a best of a generation athlete has to work to get this far.
My point is the effect this has on the sport.
Remember UK has no sports scholarships.
what does working hard have to do with it? A farmer in the poorer african regions also works very hard (probably harder than an athlete) but he might just have enough to eat.
Such would go with full concentration and application. This is not a tourist.
Have you any idea how hard a best of a generation athlete has to work to get this far.
My point is the effect this has on the sport.
Remember UK has no sports scholarships.
what does working hard have to do with it? A farmer in the poorer african regions also works very hard (probably harder than an athlete) but he might just have enough to eat.
Not being a tourist.Have you not being paying due attention ?
Great attitude. We should adopt this line of thinking in the US too, right? Young Sydney was running 54's in the 400H in 2016. She didn't even make it to the finals in Rio. She was a solid 2 seconds off of the podium. Practically a tourist.
So I guess we can have exceptions for young, promising athletes. So older, more experienced athletes who have worked hard for years, sacrificing all that they have to in order to be at or near the top of their sport, finally qualifies for a World Champ or Olympic team but we tell them "sorry, you won't medal anyway so you're efforts were for naught."
Great way to grow the sport.
Yes. Dont waste public money on people without potential. Use it to support athletes with a future. Grow the sport? There are not even 100 people who want to see a mediocre shot putter. Everyone comes to see someone like keely
Law of unintended consequences. A died sport.
How can the best of a generation be called mediocre? If so give up before you start in the sport.
For the experience! So, in the future they will know the drill/what's involved in competing in major championships which would put them in a better position to succeed in subsequent championships. BTW, athletes going back over decades have confirmed that "the gaining experience" factor helped them to be better athletes.
For the experience! So, in the future they will know the drill/what's involved in competing in major championships which would put them in a better position to succeed in subsequent championships. BTW, athletes going back over decades have confirmed that "the gaining experience" factor helped them to be better athletes.
Selection alone is a due reward and incentive for other once in a generation athlete to stay with the sport.
If you look at the ranking the depth is the same as 50 years ago.
we set a higher standard than the worlds for our tax assisted athletes.
they dont meet it. they dont go. i dont waste money, it goes somewhere more efficient.
i dont see the problem, as a UKA member.
Isn't UKA funded through the National Lottery? That's not "tax assisted." But even if I'm wrong about the funding source why not enter qualified athletes and let them fund themselves if they can?
Lina Neilsen, a w400 athlete, is ranked 27th in the world in her event. She just missed the standard by 0.06 but will be invited to Worlds under the ranking quota. Unfortunately, UK Athletics has already announced they will not bring her. With no other option to fund her own way to Budapest or seek funding from her club. Absolutely pathetic.
we set a higher standard than the worlds for our tax assisted athletes.
they dont meet it. they dont go. i dont waste money, it goes somewhere more efficient.
i dont see the problem, as a UKA member.
Isn't UKA funded through the National Lottery? That's not "tax assisted." But even if I'm wrong about the funding source why not enter qualified athletes and let them fund themselves if they can?
Comes in via UKSport a govt body who use lottery money.
There is no such thing as “ a UKA member” . Go fact check all that you say.
Isn't UKA funded through the National Lottery? That's not "tax assisted." But even if I'm wrong about the funding source why not enter qualified athletes and let them fund themselves if they can?
Comes in via UKSport a govt body who use lottery money.
There is no such thing as “ a UKA member” . Go fact check all that you say.
So you're saying I'm correct and UKA's money comes from the lottery, right? I don't know what your second sentence means. Don't British athletes register with UKA as US athletes do with USATF? And why are you bringing this up? I didn't mention UKA embers.
I like the British policy. In fact, there is no need to send more than one athlete for event, and only those who have a legitimate chance of winning. They should probably limit events at their national championships to 2 or 3 athletes as well. In fact why bother with 8 lane tracks, a 2 lane track should be good enough. For world xc, any athlete without the potential to finish top 5 shouldn't be on the team. Either 1,2,3,4,5 all UK athletes or don't send the losers.
It would be incredibly embarrassing if a British athlete finished 4th at worlds. And its totally fair and sporting to deny athletes the opportunity to make Britain look like not the best in any event.
we set a higher standard than the worlds for our tax assisted athletes.
they dont meet it. they dont go. i dont waste money, it goes somewhere more efficient.
i dont see the problem, as a UKA member.
Agree that sending runners around the world to compete dressed up in nationalistic costumes likely isn’t in the interest of taxpayers … but neither is corporate / pharmaceutical industry welfare to the tune of $10k per year (per person) for NHS, nor the dole writ large, nor most of the military spending (which is mostly covered by American taxpayers at this point). I’m sure that list could go on and on.
But none of that addresses why she can’t fund her own way… Which is precisely what every athlete ought to be doing.