My latest whinge...

Now, this is something that has really bugged me for a while... so now I
have to say something about it...

Funding for elite athletes.

I just received an email talking about the Qld Govt providing funding
for elite juniors to travel overseas. Honestly, I think this is great,
because they should get the opportunity to represent their country. The
unfortunate truth, however, is that if the parents/guardians/coaches of
these juniors got off their butts, there would no doubt be plenty of
corporate sponsors out there available to help. That's the way it is
with elites - you're up to national rep level, you can get the funding.
The Govt also seems to spend a lot of money on talent search programs
(that don't seem to be coming up with much).

Given that obesity levels in Australia are pretty appalling, and getting
worse, does anyone else think that, instead of the govt spending money
so much money on elite athletes, we should probably focus on encouraging
EVERYONE to play sport?

I see an emerging attitude that sport is for people who are good at it,
and if you're not good at it, you shouldn't be doing it. Not everyone
has this opinion but a lot do (and I have to say, I LOVE seeing
overweight people getting out there and exercising with that determined
look on their faces - if someone them they shouldn't do it, that would
break my heart). It's pretty hypocritical given that there's a big push
for everyone to have adequate education, and particularly university
education (not just if you're good at it).

I don't know what your childhood experience of sport was like, but mine
went something like this:

In summer, I was the queen of the pool, but I had no interest in
swimming squad, so I never did it, I just swam for fun. Mum was
wonderful and never made me go to a swimming squad either. So I did
alright at our school swimming carnival, but never went further. My
brother was a gifted tennis player who preferred soccer, so Mum let him
play soccer. We're both very grateful to have parents who didn't try to
live vicariously through us.

I pretty much sucked at all other sports. We all had to sprint or play
ball sports. I couldn't catch and throw all that well and if I tried to
run fast I would trip myself up. (This still happens, hence converting
to ultramarathon where I'm not expected to run so fast.) I would have a
go, but the other kids would laugh at me. I would be the last kid picked
for sport.

So I would do everything in my power to avoid the ball or whatever we
were playing with. For example if we were playing soccer I would be a
defender, and I would tackle the attackers but would always pass the
ball straight away and never try to move it upfield myself. I'd happily
run around on the field all day, but get me to actually do something,
I'd freak out. In touch football, I'd always make sure no one would
pass to me, by being surrounded by opponents, but I'd love defending.

I'd avoid any competition, anything where I had to line up against
others. I especially hated team sports because I felt like such a waste
of space, like I was letting the team down. I would practise catching at
home, bouncing the ball off the wall, but no one thought to practise
with me at school. The PE teachers didn't want anything to do with unco
kids. Sport was for those who were good at it - the rest of us should
just go back to the classroom.

I guess it was fortunate that I liked running around anyway, because
during high school I was no longer the worst at sport - all the girls
who were worried about hair and appearances and so on were rapidly
dropping past me. We did things like gymnastics and I then realised
that I wasn't as uncoordinated as the continual subjection to
humiliating ball sports had led me to believe.

Eventually I noticed I was a bit fat so I started training. I developed
a love for boxing and then judo and the associated fitness training led
me to a love of running. Injury led me to the pool, where I found out I
was still a competent swimmer, and the subsequent recovery led me to
triathlon and then cycling.

These were sports that I was never going to be brilliant at, but I
enjoyed them. Improving myself was enough. I felt no need to judge
myself against others. Now I am a trail ultra runner. I also enjoy
mountain biking. I like these sports because the terrain challenges me
more than any other competitor will.

Maybe I'll always be an hour behind the marathon winner - but that
doesn't matter to me. The winner would never laugh at me, she'd be
impressed that I was out there running. An armchair sportsfan might
laugh at me, but I'd just think they're a loser for watching when they
could be playing.

So I guess I feel like there is a serious lack of funding into promoting
sport participation for everyone, and that's bad enough. But it seems
even worse that there is a continual push for elite funding, spreading
the message that sport is only for people who are really good at it.

Tam

Tamyka Bell wrote:
Now, this is something that has really bugged me for a while... so now I
have to say something about it...

Funding for elite athletes.

I just received an email talking about the Qld Govt providing funding
for elite juniors to travel overseas. Honestly, I think this is great,
because they should get the opportunity to represent their country. The
unfortunate truth, however, is that if the parents/guardians/coaches of
these juniors got off their butts, there would no doubt be plenty of
corporate sponsors out there available to help. That's the way it is
with elites - you're up to national rep level, you can get the funding.
The Govt also seems to spend a lot of money on talent search programs
(that don't seem to be coming up with much).

The other side of the coin is that how many of elite sportspeople, once
they start earning big bucks, go and hide in tax havens and never put
much back into the system that paid for their development? A
significant number .. I'm all for mutual obligation in this context
If we (the Australian Tax Payer) take a punt on some athlete, and they
come good, then they should have to contribute back to the society that
paid for a great chunk of their development.

Given that obesity levels in Australia are pretty appalling, and getting
worse, does anyone else think that, instead of the govt spending money
so much money on elite athletes, we should probably focus on encouraging
EVERYONE to play sport?

Yes.

Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite
levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know of?
Correlation is not causation, of course
ie: Is there some connection between the amazing success of US elite
sportspeople and the overall participation rate in sports in the US (or
here, or anywhere?), or does Lance armstrong just get more people
watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes?

Bleve wrote:
Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite
levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know of?
Correlation is not causation, of course
ie: Is there some connection between the amazing success of US elite
sportspeople and the overall participation rate in sports in the US (or
here, or anywhere?), or does Lance armstrong just get more people
watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes?

I don't know about cycling but in hockey there are countries like China
with very few players but high level elite success. They look for
athletic children who have the ability to be coached and put them into
training to become world champions.

I think Australian sports organisations do much the same. They don't
care so much about whether you are a champion school level player at a
particular sport but whether you have right the physical and mental
attributes. Wasn't their an Australian in the winter olympics who came
from Bundaberg or somewhere distinctly non-snowy who was selected for
the toboggan (or whatever) because she could run quickly over ten
metres?

That said, I'm all for focussing on both elite and average sport. I've
always had the attitude that I want to be active until I'm well into my
old age. It heartens me to see people in my town playing hockey into
their seventies and people actively cycling until they are well over
eighty.

P

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter McCallum wrote:
Bleve wrote:
Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite
levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know of?
Correlation is not causation, of course
ie: Is there some connection between the amazing success of US elite
sportspeople and the overall participation rate in sports in the US (or
here, or anywhere?), or does Lance armstrong just get more people
watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes?

I don't know about cycling but in hockey there are countries like China
with very few players but high level elite success. They look for
athletic children who have the ability to be coached and put them into
training to become world champions.

I think maybe the more government-controlled societies may be a bit of
a special case?
(or maybe we're the special case, being a lot more free to do what we
want? )

I think Australian sports organisations do much the same. They don't
care so much about whether you are a champion school level player at a
particular sport but whether you have right the physical and mental
attributes. Wasn't their an Australian in the winter olympics who came
from Bundaberg or somewhere distinctly non-snowy who was selected for
the toboggan (or whatever) because she could run quickly over ten
metres?

Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out
playing sport?
Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no
facts to back this up, it's a belief ) that focussing on elite sport
may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just
a belief, I don't know if it's the case.

Bleve wrote:

Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out
playing sport?
Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no
facts to back this up, it's a belief ) that focussing on elite sport
may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just
a belief, I don't know if it's the case.

I've been participating in a program for the past couple of months
called "Hook in 2 Hockey". There are about 250 to 300 kids here in
Mackay participating, mostly ones who haven't played before. They learn
the basics of the game and hopefully will go on to play for many years.
It's funded by Hockey Australia, presumably from a government grant.

There's also an "active after school program" where kids can go and
learn about various sports. It's funded through an Australian Sports
Commission program. Coaches are paid $25 per hour to run hour long
sessions once per week with groups of kids.

I'm sure that Cycling Australia could develop something along the lines
of Hook in 2 Hockey and get more kids into cycling as a sport. That's if
they think that having a lot of people who will only ever ride at a D
grade or C grade level are of any benefit to the sport. I think they
are, but a lot of sports administrators and senior coaches aren't really
interested in people at that level.

Last year Mackay Hockey Assn organised an "adult beginners" course. We
ended up with far more participants than we expected, some have started
playing, others have taken up coaching. It's great for the sport but
mostly I'm happy that a few more people are comfortable with their
ability to be active on the weekend.

Peter


--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter McCallum wrote:
Bleve wrote:

Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out
playing sport?
Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no
facts to back this up, it's a belief ) that focussing on elite sport
may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just
a belief, I don't know if it's the case.

I've been participating in a program for the past couple of months
called "Hook in 2 Hockey". There are about 250 to 300 kids here in
Mackay participating, mostly ones who haven't played before. They learn
the basics of the game and hopefully will go on to play for many years.
It's funded by Hockey Australia, presumably from a government grant.

There's also an "active after school program" where kids can go and
learn about various sports. It's funded through an Australian Sports
Commission program. Coaches are paid $25 per hour to run hour long
sessions once per week with groups of kids.

I'm sure that Cycling Australia could develop something along the lines
of Hook in 2 Hockey and get more kids into cycling as a sport. That's if
they think that having a lot of people who will only ever ride at a D
grade or C grade level are of any benefit to the sport. I think they
are, but a lot of sports administrators and senior coaches aren't really
interested in people at that level.

We have a J-cycle program designed to do this with kids, but much less
so with adults.
I decided to do it on my own with my coaching stuff (I'm not touting
for business!) to provide support and coaching for grass-roots riders,
as you point out, senior coaches and the clubs etc pay little attention
to non junior, non elite riders. It's their loss, working with D grade
riders and seeing them improve is immensely satisfying, and a healthy D
grade bunch is great for the sport across the board. Maybe the next
Phil Anderson or Robbie McEwen will come out of it, probably not, but
they're racing, training, being involved and getting fit, which beats
posing at cafe ****** any day!

Last year Mackay Hockey Assn organised an "adult beginners" course. We
ended up with far more participants than we expected, some have started
playing, others have taken up coaching. It's great for the sport but
mostly I'm happy that a few more people are comfortable with their
ability to be active on the weekend.

This is the sort of thing that all sporting associations should be
doing, IMO.

Peter McCallum wrote:

There's also an "active after school program" where kids can go and
learn about various sports. It's funded through an Australian Sports
Commission program.

And that is what is wrong with that program; it is sports orientated.
They will get far more kids if it is general, active fun orientated.

Bleve Wrote:
Peter McCallum wrote:
Bleve wrote:
Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite
levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know
of?
Correlation is not causation, of course
ie: Is there some connection between the amazing success of US
elite
sportspeople and the overall participation rate in sports in the US
(or
here, or anywhere?), or does Lance armstrong just get more people
watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes?

I don't know about cycling but in hockey there are countries like
China
with very few players but high level elite success. They look for
athletic children who have the ability to be coached and put them
into
training to become world champions.

I think maybe the more government-controlled societies may be a bit of
a special case?
(or maybe we're the special case, being a lot more free to do what we
want? )

I think Australian sports organisations do much the same. They don't
care so much about whether you are a champion school level player at
a
particular sport but whether you have right the physical and mental
attributes. Wasn't their an Australian in the winter olympics who
came
from Bundaberg or somewhere distinctly non-snowy who was selected
for
the toboggan (or whatever) because she could run quickly over ten
metres?

Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out
playing sport?
Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no
facts to back this up, it's a belief ) that focussing on elite
sport
may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just
a belief, I don't know if it's the case.


This is similar to a question I keep asking myself (and hence getting
dumb answers to):

How does investment in elite sport actually benefit Australia? Apart
from the ego factor of "ooh, we won so many medals, etc."... Now, I
know that all funding doesn't have to go to things that will 'pay back'
financially, and am happy to see money go to the arts 'n such. But does
the exorbitant amount of money poured into relatively few athletes
actually benefit the country in any significant way? Are we healthier?
Are we wiser? Are we smarter? Do we get more tourists just because
we're good swimmers?

Or does my cynical side spy a touch of the Colosseum in govt's choices
of funding - "ooh... look... glorious sports to watch... let's not
worry about all the crippling social/environmental/economic issues and
watch people run around instead..."


--
eddiec

Bleve wrote:

Tamyka Bell wrote:
Now, this is something that has really bugged me for a while... so now I
have to say something about it...

Funding for elite athletes.

I just received an email talking about the Qld Govt providing funding
for elite juniors to travel overseas. Honestly, I think this is great,
because they should get the opportunity to represent their country. The
unfortunate truth, however, is that if the parents/guardians/coaches of
these juniors got off their butts, there would no doubt be plenty of
corporate sponsors out there available to help. That's the way it is
with elites - you're up to national rep level, you can get the funding.
The Govt also seems to spend a lot of money on talent search programs
(that don't seem to be coming up with much).

The other side of the coin is that how many of elite sportspeople, once
they start earning big bucks, go and hide in tax havens and never put
much back into the system that paid for their development? A
significant number .. I'm all for mutual obligation in this context
If we (the Australian Tax Payer) take a punt on some athlete, and they
come good, then they should have to contribute back to the society that
paid for a great chunk of their development.

Exactly - students are expected to pay back HECS debts, and even
students on PhD scholarships will as postdocs contribute tax (in a
higher bracket than from their undergrad degree) - oh except that with
no incentive to keep scientists in Australia, most head overseas...

Given that obesity levels in Australia are pretty appalling, and getting
worse, does anyone else think that, instead of the govt spending money
so much money on elite athletes, we should probably focus on encouraging
EVERYONE to play sport?

Yes.

Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite
levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know of?
Correlation is not causation, of course
snip
No studies I know of.

Tamyka Bell wrote:

Exactly - students are expected to pay back HECS debts, and even
students on PhD scholarships will as postdocs contribute tax (in a
higher bracket than from their undergrad degree) - oh except that with
no incentive to keep scientists in Australia, most head overseas...

PhDs in a higher tax bracket? You obviously don't mean the PhD scientist I
employed who previously had a job stacking comics. :-(

Cheers,

Vince