Morse throws 66.06m!

[diskobolus]

I certainly wouldn't call Brett a liar. However having read the telegraph article, even UKA admit to steering Brett and his coach to Vestein, without any prior discussion about moving with his coach. Can you imagine being a coach to one of the brightest throwing prospects in the UK. A coach who in 4 years has taken them from throwing 43m as an under 17 to throwing 64.50 at Chula Vista in April, and then being told by UKA that your athlete needs technical input from another coach. I think the whole situation stinks, that UKA can come in and do this. Any parent out there with an aspiring child in future needs to look down the UKA's list of approved coaches, before taking their child to be trained by one.

[Ursus]

Mixed feelings about all this.

Yes it's up to Brett who coaches him

But the governing body must have a role in ensuring that a very bright prospect is given every chance of succeeding

However he'd been progressing v well under Bevone & there had been no signs of that progress stalling

But did Bev have the discus specific experience to take an athlete from the very good to the seriously world class?

Shame that for whatever reason Bev didn't have the opportunity to keep going - perhaps in conjunction with someone more experienced.

Whether all parties have sat down in a constructive way to discuss how the athlete's best interests could be served is doubtful.

[usedtoit33]

Well, the positive (no pun intended) I took from the article was that CVC in his email encouraged Bevone to go with Morse so he could benefit from Hafsteinsson's knowledge as well, but the article also states that Haf wasn't someone Bevone wanted to work with for his own good reasons. This is a newspaper so the story may not be accurate.

I do like the efforts made to link athletes up with some of the best coaches in the world, although they can't take credit for all of them.

Interesting that they've sent over Eden Francis and Ryan Spencer-Jones (not Jenkins I think?) as well, though neither are on funding.

As for the dispute, that's down to the parties involved, but it's happened now and us outsiders should probably bow out of it now.

[BigGut]

You say UKA used there muscle. Here is Brett's take on it:

"I am NOT coached by Veisteen either so im not sure why this discussion is even taking place. I got on really well with him in the Summer so I asked if I can attend a few training camps with his guys and if he could overlook everything when I am in his company so no he is not my coach. Nigel if you hadnt noticed also I havnt moved anywhere and never palnned to I am stil in Cardiff training hard. You see me when you are lecturing at UWIC on a tuesday so you know this. No one has ever been in my ear from UKA to move away from Cardiff and the only times I have been there is to see the medical guys and nutritionist aswell as the UK 2012 weekend that was a few weeks ago where all athletes were there. "

That doesn't quite seem to match with the notion of UKA making him leave his coach for Veisteen.

There are always two sides to every story, but people outside of the situation to be making allegations is just pure politics.

[diskobolus]

Big gut, you are completely missing the point i'm making here. Firstly let me be crystal clear that i'm not questioning Bretts integrity in any way. I wish Brett every susscess for the future.The point i'm making isn't directly about Brett at all. It just happens that my concern has been highlighted in the break up in his relationship with his coach.

His coach took him from a second year under 17 throwing the 1.5kg 43m to 4 years later throwing the 2kg nearly 65m. That sort of distance is already world class. By any measure Bretts rise in the 4 years his coach was with him was stellar, and can be due in no small measure to his coaches coaching skills. I cant think of another UK throws coach who has managed the same sort of improvement in recent years (i'm sure i'll be corrected if i'm wrong!!).

On the back of this meteoric improvement, UKA then become involved, saying they have "identified a need for greater technical input..."into Bretts coaching. Can you give me another situation where on the back of such an improvement, the governing body would so readily interfere.

I'm concerned that UKA became involved because in this case Bretts coach is seen as a maverick and is outspoken. They orchestrated the situation whereby Brett was introduced to Vestein. A few months later Brett makes the decision to leave his coach. If Bretts coach was in the mainstream of UK athletics, would UKA have become involved in the way they did? I suspect not. They would have left (what was presumably) an extremely successful athlete coach partnership.

Once again let me repeat, this isn't a dig at Brett who has every right to choose who he has coaching him (and let me say here that Brett has publicly thanked his coach for all the work ghe put in), but i'm concerned at UKA's role in this matter, and the message it sends out to other coaches.

[BigGut]

The only thing that there seems to be agreement on between Brett and Bev is that UKA suggested that there may be some benefit for Brett and Bev to see Haf. Bev says this was to replace him. Brett says it was in addition.

Given the paucity of heavy throws coaches who have had any success at the level they are operating at it isn't surprising that we are talking about looking to a foreign coach for advice. Are we really saying that UKA should not be lining up elite coaches to help us develope our athletes?

If UKA and Brett say that they did not approach him to move then other than lining up a world class coach to add to rather than replace an existing coach then what is UKAs role in this?

There is bound to be other stuff that none of us except the people directly involved can ever know for certain. I just don't think that keyboard warriors should jump to conclusions and assume anything. The facts seem to be are that Brett was introduced to Haf by UKA. Brett left Bev. Brett is not coahced by Haf and has never been suggested by UKA that he should leave Bev.

[readtherules]

The whole matter is ridden with politics.
UKA have committed lots of money to L'boro throws centre.
Weir would not force athletes to go to L'boro.This may have been a reason thats caused his leaving.
Within months we have a raft of athletes under L'boro and or Pickerings influence.
The whole concept of athletes being encouraged to go to central UKA influenced situations has been commented on in many posts.
This may well be the best outcome but lets understand the political forces at play.
Then we have UKA and the confused situation with UKA playing the idealological card of zero drug tolerance and whether or not the coach is coaching or employed or whatever and Bevone saying that "he" has been subject to intelligent led testing.

My worry is post 2012 the sport will have no money and the volunter coaches will have gone.Result ; negative legacy .

[BigGut]

What has the Loughborough throws centre got to do with anything? Brett Morse is not based there, he is still based in Cardiff.

[readtherules]

What has the Loughborough throws centre got to do with anything? Brett Morse is not based there, he is still based in Cardiff.

It is both a physical centre and a centre of coaching focus and lead by Pickering being based there.
The whole matter cannot be understood without understanding UKA's Loughborough stratagy.

[FredSpearman]

Not that interested in the Discus, but found this post amusing and with lots of misinfo.

Ive had a look at the film clip of Morse's 66m throw. Was that really a comp? there doesnt appear to be any sector lines and the cage mouth looks very wide with no doors. Checking back I see Kantor had his PR here and that looks like a training comp as well. Does anyone check? If you check the cage against the ones the throwers face in the uk then they are at a decided disadvantage? This really does look like a training comp when was it decided to throw, when everything was at the throwers advantage? How many comps did they have that day? I'm surprised it was allowed as a legitimate performance.

A poster has written that Morse is definately the UK No. 1

What about a being beaten 4 - 1 comps by Carl Myerscough..... A SHOT PUTTER!!!!!!

2 - 1 over Okoya, but lost England U23's and failed to qualify for final of Euro U23 Champs...... Oh yes Okoya won that one, a 'Major' title.

Buhari won the UK Champs/Trials and the England Champs and had a big PR in a proper comp against the UK's best, though Morse wasn't there... perhaps competing in a nice low key meet in sweden perhaps?

UKA seem to be pushing Morse foreward they paid for a month in the USA, along with his then coach Bevan. They seem to be paying for him to train abroad and have put him on podium funding ahead of Okoya on the basis of what?
Just qualifying for the final at the Worlds, seem to be the measure applied for this favouitism....... over a major title, remember here Morse didn't even qualify for the final, and a UK Record, finishing in the top 5 in the world in the rankings????

How about some transparency and some better serious study of that 66m throw in Sweden by some of our top officials...... if UKA would allow that mind?

[usedtoit33]

With respect, Morse has been the most consistent thrower over 60m, and reaching a World final (when Buhari and Myerscough didn't) is, and no offence to Okoye, a better achievement than winning the Euro U23s.

Morse - 20/23 comps 60m+
Buhari - 8/12 comps 60m+
Myerscough - 8/8 comps 60m+
Okoye - 4/12 comps 60m+

Myerscough really does have potential at the discus though. It's a shame he didn't work on the event more over the past few years.

[TheRealSub10]

Then we have UKA and the confused situation with UKA playing the idealological card of zero drug tolerance and whether or not the coach is coaching or employed or whatever and Bevone saying that "he" has been subject to intelligent led testing.

Can you explain this further? Surely UKAD just look at who is doing well and test them, the better the athlete the more you test? Intelligence lead testing for me would be around using the carbon isotope testing for T if you suspect someone is manipulating the T/E ratio or putting a PI on them 24/7 to see if they are meeting with known dealers.

[TheRealSub10]

Just qualifying for the final at the Worlds, seem to be the measure applied for this favouitism.......

That's not favouritism that's a criteria for Lottery funding. Make a World or Olympic final and you are pretty much funded for the next 4 years provided you are not seriously injured and show potential to regain the kind of form that got you there in the first place. If you want an easy way to funding aim for the WCs the year after the Olympics when performances tend to be down.

[readtherules]

Then we have UKA and the confused situation with UKA playing the idealological card of zero drug tolerance and whether or not the coach is coaching or employed or whatever and Bevone saying that "he" has been subject to intelligent led testing.

Can you explain this further? Surely UKAD just look at who is doing well and test them, the better the athlete the more you test? Intelligence lead testing for me would be around using the carbon isotope testing for T if you suspect someone is manipulating the T/E ratio or putting a PI on them 24/7 to see if they are meeting with known dealers.

UKAD are informed by UKA as well as looking at rankings.There are dozens of sports and the gov bods will provide inside info as well as there own "snitch line"

IRMS is used all the time anyway.For better details read the various WADA docs available.

Dream time in terms of using a PI .You have no grasp of how street drugs are exchanged and note most drugs can be got thru the post or on holiday etc etc.UKAD's view is that coaches are involved so PI on them as well ?

[readtherules]

Just qualifying for the final at the Worlds, seem to be the measure applied for this favouitism.......

That's not favouritism that's a criteria for Lottery funding. Make a World or Olympic final and you are pretty much funded for the next 4 years provided you are not seriously injured and show potential to regain the kind of form that got you there in the first place. If you want an easy way to funding aim for the WCs the year after the Olympics when performances tend to be down.

Age related and this is subjectivly evaluated as to its significance and thus subject to favouritism.Ditto injury.

[BigGut]

Just qualifying for the final at the Worlds, seem to be the measure applied for this favouitism.......

That's not favouritism that's a criteria for Lottery funding. Make a World or Olympic final and you are pretty much funded for the next 4 years provided you are not seriously injured and show potential to regain the kind of form that got you there in the first place. If you want an easy way to funding aim for the WCs the year after the Olympics when performances tend to be down.

Age related and this is subjectivly evaluated as to its significance and thus subject to favouritism.Ditto injury.

I think you are missing the point. The use of making the World level final is not a measure applied for favouritism, it is a UK Sport laid down criteria for funding. If Buhari had made the final he would probably also have met the criteria. Okoye on the otherhand did not meet this criteria and Myerscough is not currently eligible for funding. SO it isn't slective favouritism, the guy made a world level final whilst still an U23 and progressing year on year. Taking personalities out of it, why do people think that he shouldn't be funded?

[readtherules]

Big g.

Subject age and injury ,which is subjective.

[BigGut]

How is that relevant to the discussion of two under 23 discus throwers, neither of whom are injured.

You are just looking to make out there is an issue when there clearly is not. If you think it is all down to subjective favouritism please list the World level finalists who were not funded in the following season. If you can't show that there are any then clearly you are talking rubbish.

[readtherules]

How is that relevant to the discussion of two under 23 discus throwers, neither of whom are injured.

You are just looking to make out there is an issue when there clearly is not. If you think it is all down to subjective favouritism please list the World level finalists who were not funded in the following season. If you can't show that there are any then clearly you are talking rubbish.

How is it that you mis interpret the context of a post and then yet yet again start insulting.

Please,Mr Moderator,can you not control those who fall into insults on a regular basis ?

[BigGut]

What insult? There is no insult in my post. For gods sake man, grow up.

This thread is about Brett Morse. The suggestion is that funding him over Lawrence Okoye is down to subjective favouritiasm. the counter argument is that the criteria for top level funding includes making a world final as one way of getting onto this funding. Morse has achieved that, Okoye hasn't.

Now do you have any actual facts to contribute to the debate? Or do you just want to go around making un-substantiated statements and falsely accussing people.

[SteveK26]

To take a simplistic view,if funds are limited and (say) you can only fund ONE discus thrower, you would fund the number one discus thrower you have , wouldn't you?
In which case on last years results it would have to be Morse.

[Ursus]

To take a simplistic view,if funds are limited and (say) you can only fund ONE discus thrower, you would fund the number one discus thrower you have , wouldn't you?
In which case on last years results it would have to be Morse

Interesting question that.

Excellent athlete though Brett is, I'd be seriously tempted by Laurence who has so much potential. Brett will probably qualify for globals, but Laurence to my mind has the raw potential for the podium, maybe even the top step. How could you not fund someone who offers that possibility? Would be v harsh on Brett though, and with the proviso that Laurence continued to improve and became more consistent.

[Geoff]

Based on 2011 form Brett must be number 1 and following his Daegu performance has to receive podium funding. I think the funding for Lawrence and Abdul is about right based on 2011 results. If we based decisions on potential then Lawrence would get it but potential is not always realised.

Picking up on the type of competition in Sweden where Brett threw his 66m and 'A' standard. It will be interesting to see of UKA accept Merv Luckwell's 'A' standard in the javelin at Wrexham in September. I can't for the life of me understanf why not especially if overseas marks in similar meets are counted.

[readtherules]

What insult? There is no insult in my post. For gods sake man, grow up.

This thread is about Brett Morse. The suggestion is that funding him over Lawrence Okoye is down to subjective favouritiasm. the counter argument is that the criteria for top level funding includes making a world final as one way of getting onto this funding. Morse has achieved that, Okoye hasn't.

Now do you have any actual facts to contribute to the debate? Or do you just want to go around making un-substantiated statements and falsely accussing people.

Never said what you claim.

[BigGut]

Point 1, I never said you did, Fred made the suggestion.

Point 2, if you werent saying this then what was the point of your post, when this thread is ENTIRELY about Brett Morse.

[readtherules]

Point 1, I never said you did, Fred made the suggestion.

Point 2, if you werent saying this then what was the point of your post, when this thread is ENTIRELY about Brett Morse.

Lost.I am sorry.

[TheRealSub10]

To take a simplistic view,if funds are limited and (say) you can only fund ONE discus thrower, you would fund the number one discus thrower you have , wouldn't you?
In which case on last years results it would have to be Morse

Interesting question that.

Excellent athlete though Brett is, I'd be seriously tempted by Laurence who has so much potential. Brett will probably qualify for globals, but Laurence to my mind has the raw potential for the podium, maybe even the top step. How could you not fund someone who offers that possibility? Would be v harsh on Brett though, and with the proviso that Laurence continued to improve and became more consistent.

Which is exactly what is happening. Brett is on Podium funding and Lawrence is on Development (because he has potential to make a world final, while Bret HAS made a world final).

[readtherules]

This link may be helpful;

http://www.uka.org.uk/world-class/world ... mme-guide/


Note; Lawrence could well have made podium as reasons exist to do so which go beyond top 8.These reasons would be subjective and as such could be subject to favouritism.For what it is worth, I would have added him to podium.

[diskobolus]

Ursus seems to imply that Brett has the ability to qualify for global finals, but may'be go no further. Can i remind him that Brett is still under 23 and has already thrown 66m. In the last 4 years he has made steady if not spectacular progress in reaching this mark and there is no reason that i can see (putting aside the argument about whether he would have been better off staying with Bev), why over the next 5 years (may'be 2016!!), he cant get to 68-69 metres which is a definite World and Olympic medal winning chance.
Lawrence is definitely a great talent but so far all he has really done is thrown far on one occasion, when all the conditions were stacked in his favour. This is exemplified by what the other top throwers threw that day too. I wonder how far Brett would have gone if he'd been there that day?