What's Happened to our Sprinters?

[Packin_Snacks]

I do not snipe at our athletes; I tell jingo- fans what they are not prepared, ever, to listen to...ever; I am not some fan who wishes to shout from the house tops and over-rate athletes on the basis of a one off performance, frequently in home conditions with not too much competition.
Clearly, Jingo-fans dont take into account anything other than the need to tell us all that they know promising or great performers and performances and we realists do not. Nonsense..I always recognise outstanding performers/performances...British or otherwise.!! ( just consider the ridiculous hype by some fans who should know better about young Gemili)

It is not sneering to say the words "underperformance" "poor" " disappointing".

Mump makes the point that we will never have loads of world class athletes... is that seriously meant to be something I did NOT know.. Of course we won't, but I will be damned if I will be forced by the intolerant jingoism of some here to acknowledge what aint true ...namely, a lot of our athletes are hyped up appallingly on this Forum of free speech .... such that, when an athlete does a "Geneva", the fans on AW Forum go OTT but when we point out the irrelevance of such performances, we are miserable, snipers, sneerers etc. I do not require guidance by posters as to the genuine quality or otherwise of various athletes.

After all the talk of medals etc since last year, any honest fan of British athletes knows the weaknesses of our sprint men and women, our middle distance gaps of talent, so eminently indicated this season and especially the last few weeks.

And if I say that I think that English footballers are second rate, I suppose posters will go into the same mode as they do on track and field.

Nope sorry mate, but all I tend to see when you post are belittling, snide, biting over-critical statements about the state of UK athletics, which has you going as far as leaving "smiley face" icons on posts when a British athlete meets your "expectations" and under-performs (like you did this morning with Sarah Holt in the hammer).

You almost seem to take pleasure when Britain *doesn't* do well, just so it can justify your mean-spirited stance and whatever "point" you'd been making in one of your ranting posts here.

It's not like the other posters on here can't see some of our athletes struggling for themselves (we have EYES you know), but we don't feel the need to kick someone when they are already down like you and Ultragirl are more than happy to do on a regular basis.

If someone is a serial under-performer and keeps on making weak excuses for that, or if hyperbole and hype get too much, most of the folks here will and DO criticize and ask questions. But there is a measure of balance to their views that you seem to sadly lack Jeremy, especially when you, on more than one occasion, then ignore someone's *good* performance (like Sophie Hitchon getting through to the Hammer final today with a great last round throw, whilst World record holder Heidler massively *under-performed* which you seemed to lack mentioning at all), just so you can have a go at our athletes!

The "jingoistic" person I see here is YOU mate. So like I said earlier in the day... get a grip!

[mump boy]

The idea that i'm jingoistic is laughable

jin·go·ism (jngg-zm)
n.
Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

Maybe you should go and buy a dictionary along with some Prozac

[gruffalo]

djlovesyou - get a grip

you are implying that athletes who run sub 10 are some how doping and "Team GB" are the real worlds best

Behave

Athletes from numerous countries are running sub-10 and you are implying that they are doping to get there.

Lemaitre and the other french sprinters make the UK sprinters look just plain useless

Mike Mcfarlane is not a world class coach but he has the future in his hands of one of the best world class prospects for years.

No UK sprint coach is world class full stop. If they were Sprinters from around the world would be knocking at their door - they are not.

Niggling injuries?? world class athletes may get them but come back to run world class times. All we ever hear about athletes not even getting to the next level is "niggling injuries" has prevented them.

Extra thick bifocal rose-tinted glasses on standby.

Unfortunately these young athletes know no different and rely on their coaches to do the best for them and offer the best advice which they take as gospel. If the coaches were honest they would say "move on" if you want to progress to the next level.

They unfortunately are not and they and UKA believe in these coaches own ego.

Best quote ever heard

"A coach may be defined as an egoistic person who associates with an athlete in an effort to enhance his/her own credibility."

far too many of them

[Kermit]

I still don't understand the need to criticise individuals. Nobody sets out to run poorly or not make the Olympics. Even those on funding can hardly be expected to turn funding down if it is offered to them. If there were better athletes around then the funding would be directed towards them. At the end of the day, the sport is an individual one and the only person who loses out when a sprinter runs badly is the sprinter themself.

On a wider note about coaching, sprints and expectations, it has been suggested that young sprinters should be looking to the future and thinking about LTAD. While I wholeheartedly agree and do not think it wise to mention names, take a look at the top 10 all time lists for male and female U17 sprints (ignoring those that are there but are still juniors): -

M100m: Of the top 10, only MLF and Tyrone Edgar went on to break 10.10 as seniors (in MLF's case, in his first year).
M200m: Nobody went on to break 20.5. Tim Benjamin and Mark Richardson went on to be world class 400m runners. Darren Campbell is down in 20th.
M400m: Richardson is top and was truly world class. Nobody else broke 45. Hylton (9th) ran 45.24.
W100: Sonia Lannaman went on to break 11.3. Nobody else did. Kath Merry obviously went on to world class over 400m.
W200: Simmone Jacobs was the only one to break 23 as a senior. Vernicha James and Amy Spencer were outstanding juniors. Merry also appears.
W300: Nobody of note appears in the top 10.

My point is that when we see outstanding under 17s, we can certainly hope for the best, because the odd one goes on to world class (often in a different event), but we shouldn't be at all surprised if they don't progress much at all, because that is the norm. Expecting them to go on to Olympic games in the future and succeed is fine, but the odds are stacked heavily against. Of course, as Richardson, Merry and others have shown, it is not impossible.

The real questions are why this trend exists. Is it that the very best U17s are people who peak naturally early in life? Is it coaching? Is it that they get bored? Injuries from starting their careers too early? Has there been any research on what the very best elite athletes were doing as U17s? I can think of Roger Black, Iwan Thomas and even Linford who were probably doing very little at that age. Chambers and even Gemili were good but not outstanding under 17s.

I wonder whether the USA AT U17 lists feature household names? Ultimately, why do we have such promising talents at that age who rarely progress into outstanding seniors?

Great post, it actually shows the UKA, BAAB and AAA have ALL had problems in converting great juniors into world class seniors

What's happened to our sprinters?

Well nothing - they are all still mediocre (in world terms) as ever.

Lifelong coaching by UK Sprint coaches who are not world class, have no world class pedigree and no history of taking good juniors to the world class level.

The sport is professional now and with it should come professional responsibility.

Lets face it in the real world most of the coaches in the UK would have been fired by now - pity Alan Sugar doesn't work for UKA

It has been going on for years where there is "no plan" and where young talent's progress can be stifled by inadequate coaching. What's more the inadequate coaching can lead to the all too familiar excuses we hear time and again "niggling injuries" - cause and affect

World class athletes don't get niggling injuries

I feel for kids like Jodie Williams and Adam Gemili as I honestly believe they will never reach their true potential stuck in the system - what's worse if they chose their own way and chose a positive decision to say go abroad they can get ostracised by UKA for not "towing the party line". Are UKA there for the benefit of the athletes or the coaches?

The words I hate to hear when they are asked about whats next "I'll have to speak to my coach" - Tiger Woods may as well ask me to look at his swing.

A certain UK sprinter who went to the caribbean to train was accused of "not working hard enough" - endemic of the coaching he received in the UK?

Harry AA, Simeon etc despite their age have been in the game long enough to be able to take a true look at themselves and determine their future. Now is the time to make that decision if it means going elsewhere to progress or plod along for the rest of their careers.

rant over

Just want to see Adam G run

Another good post, however world class athletes DO get niggling injuries, we only have to look at Tyson Gay's valiant attempts to be as quick if not quicker than Usain Bolt, every time he gets close his lumbar pelvic hip complex breaks down.

Malcolm Arnold, Mackie and Lloyd Cowans in my opinion ARE world class coaches, there are one or two not to far off, but the rest I am not too sure about.

Some have short memories, regarding injuries. Linford and the others in his day may have had injuries but they would show up to the major champs and produce. This is not happening now - uka are interfering rather than let some athletes get on with it. Tyrone edgar -btw is based in the US now and more and more UK athlete are seeking the us for the answer where they are improving. Most of our marquee athletes stay here but i wonder how the would have done if they' d go to the us under coaCHES who know how to coach full time.

With all the funding and interfering - uka has had a poor record of success and perhaps if they had employed people who were the right people for the job rather than hand picked their own - maybe the sport would be in a better place, \there is a strong argument to save lots of money and support out best to go to the top us unis and then support them properly when they come back at 23 - if that is what the athlete wants. Maybe get these unis to employ Uk coaches - or uk employ them to go on sabbaticals to learn how to coach properly, so they could see how to do it.

Spot on - this is the era we grew up in. Winning was everything while losing got you teased (in a fun way), but our championships were never a "closed" affair.

And if I say that I think that English footballers are second rate, I suppose posters will go into the same mode as they do on track and field.

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! They are worse than second rate, they are a joke. How can a man have a court case delayed so that he can hijack a trophy presentation and then play in a major international tournament?

The idea that i'm jingoistic is laughable

It would be if you did the dance wrong! JINGOOOOO, jingo bop ..... huuuuh

[gruffalo]

To imply that fast times are somehow doping related also does disrespect to people like Kathy Cooke.

Montell Douglas "british record holder" haha has only run 2 world class times in her entire career. Her personal achievements in world class terms reminds me of German Long jumper Sebastian Bayer who jumped 8.71 Indoors and 8.49 outdoors in 2009 -nothing before and nothing since.

Even I can hit a golf shot like Tiger Woods now and again - doesn't make me world class or otherwise

Consistant performance is an indication of an athletes true ability not "one offs" that people continually harp back to.

How often do we here "she/he is a xxxxx runner/jumper at best" harping back to that one off performance in an entire career of mediocrity that means nothing on the day.
Oh don't tell me - "niggling injuries"

[mump boy]

You mean Sebastiann Beyer who jumped 8.34 to lead the qualifying at the Euro champs today ??

[trickstat]

Montell Douglas "british record holder" haha has only run 2 world class times in her entire career. Her personal achievements in world class terms reminds me of German Long jumper Sebastian Bayer who jumped 8.71 Indoors and 8.49 outdoors in 2009 -nothing before and nothing since.

8.34 (+2.4) in the qualifying in Helsinki this morning. I wouldn't bet my life savings on him winning the final though as he does tend to blow very hot and cold.

[djlovesyou]

djlovesyou - get a grip

you are implying that athletes who run sub 10 are some how doping and "Team GB" are the real worlds best

Behave

Athletes from numerous countries are running sub-10 and you are implying that they are doping to get there.

I didn't say that though did I?

Although I will stand by my comments that a very significant proportion of all athletes who have gone under 10 seconds are and were doping. Loads of them have even got caught, and in a world where it's pretty tough to get busted, that's pretty damning. I didn't say you had to dope to get under 10 seconds, but you can pretend I did if it makes you happy and suits your argument.

The ridiculous concept that not getting caught = not doping is the problem with most people when trying to have sensible discussion.

I also didn't suggest for a second that British sprinters are not winning because they're not doping - I actually said that explicity. I made the point that they could perhaps get a bit closer to the action.

Oh, and lastly, the post was on the whole tongue in cheek. Not shocked you missed that.

[sidelined]

Bevone, it can't possibly be true that Montell Douglas was dropped from funding because she chose to be coached in America, because she wasn't on funding last year either, when she was coached in the UK. Also, I don't believe that going to the US is necessarily the answer, because British sprinters who have gone to university in the US aren't tearing up the track either. Name a few who you think have improved dramatically because of US coaching.

A certain UK sprinter who went to the caribbean to train was accused of "not working hard enough" - endemic of the coaching he received in the UK?

Probably not. If we're thinking of the same athlete, I read that his UK coach tore him off a strip for not working hard enough.

[bevone]

I will yield to the better man as I was just repeating what I understood to be he case. for example I saw her out with the GB team last year in he states and this year she was not as far as I am aware as I saw her again at a similar time at lee valley and it was there that the comment was passed on. Perhaps she paid her own way or was there because some of her training partners were there.

Tyrone Edgar, Tasha danvers, Carl Myerscough, Proctor, Cox, Porter, Bigham, and several European top athletes come to mind as good athletes who went there -as I said most of the marquee ones are forced or encouraged to stay here. CVC as a coach of not much note - what did he do - he went to the US (and other places) and pestered various coaches for knowledge and got himself known and this furthered his knowledge etc and now look where he is now.

I think my suggestion of developing relationships with top US unis would be productive espcially i you sent them to unis with reputatble and specialist coaches. In return our paid coaches could go n sabbaticals. I think that is a sensible suggestion but that obviously is not wanted in this environment. AS I said I am sure jody and co would thrive over there and come back as top u23 's or athletes who had the opportunity but were not good enough ultimately.

[djhdjh]

Wouldn't it be more productive to develop our own collegiate system? I don't see that it couldn't be done - plenty of the top facilities that form the National or Regional Centres are based at or close to some of our top sporting universities. The issue would of course be funding, would it be possible (i.e. would UK Sport allow it) for money to be spent providing for full coaching set ups and scholarships to the best places for some of our best athletes. Of course creating a properly competitive university culture would take longer but I'm sure it would happen (especially if someone works out a way to knock Loughborough off their perch!).

I certainly think this would be preferable to moving our best athletes en masse to the States. This is surely likely to lead to less chance for our top coaches to develop by working with high class talent and I could easily see talented athletes getting lost in the shuffle out there whereas obviously a highly ranked UK athlete is always going to be given the necessary attention over here. I can also see plenty of athletes not wanting to leave an environment that they feel happy in. It's a worthwhile endeavour for those who feel they're missing something over here but I don't think it would be good for it to be the norm.

[Kermit]

Wouldn't it be more productive to develop our own collegiate system? I don't see that it couldn't be done - plenty of the top facilities that form the National or Regional Centres are based at or close to some of our top sporting universities.

This is exactly what Prime Minister John Major wanted to happen when he launched the lottery

[Geoff]

As can be seen with all the posts on this subject there are many, many isues/ideas/problems. The latter posts have concentrated on bringing talented jumiors through to the senior ranks but generally we've just gone backwards, regardless of age, in the past four years.

Again, in general terms, in a year where we have a home Olympics we are struggling to get A standard qualifiers in both men's and women's 100m plus we are close to not having a women's 4x100 team in the Games. We should have been stronger than ever but things have gone very wrong. A few weeks ago Fangio tried to convince me everything is alright but there's been little sign of it as we approach selection day. Can the situation improve in the next 5 weeks or so?

I think Chambers will get better and Gemili is already running well but the best we can realistically hope for is a third or fourth placed finish in a 3 heat semi final and not make it through. The men's relay team could be ranked about fifth on paper come London so will need to rely on others to underperform and we get the baton round smoothly.

We can't expect much in the women's 100m and we'll know on Sunday night whether they have stayed in the top 16 and qualify for London. Someone posted that our girls will easily qualify for the final at the weekend but they are fourth fastest in their heat with Belgium just behind and we haven't got our A team!

I don't want any personal criticism of athletes but believe it is our strategy, structure and systems that need reviewing post London and I don't believe it should just be left to a few at UK Sport and UKA to decide what is best. The whole sport should be consulted as this is not just a sprints issue at elite level.

One final thought is there seems to be more friction in the sprinting world than even among the throwers

[sidelined]

Tyrone Edgar, Tasha Danvers, Carl Myerscough, Proctor, Cox, Porter, Bingham, and several European top athletes come to mind as good athletes who went there [to the U.S.]...

Bevone, I don't think that you can claim Proctor, Cox, Porter or Bingham for your argument, because none of them moved from Britain to the US. We all know how Carl Myerscough improved his throwing. Edgar and Danvers have both spent a lot of time injured... I don't think the case is clear at all that going to the US is going to result in startling improvement.

[fangio]

Geoff

I take it you are on about just the 100m, which seems a rather poor measure of the system as a whole. Take a look at the 200m prior to the Olympics in 2008 for an alternative impression.
Men
200m - 2008 AN 20.49(J) CM 20.52(J) MD 20.52 B Standard TA 20.57 (J) RF 20.64 (J)
2012 JA 20.45 CM 20.46 RK 20.50 JE 20.55 B Standard AG 20.61 CC 20.65

So given an extra 6 weeks of the season 2008 still had fewer A standards than this year, and each position they were slower than this year.

200m - 2008 EF 22.72 CO 22.94 B Standard AM 20.13 LM 20.16 EA 20.25
2010 AO 22.71 JE 22.88 AO 22.93 B Standard MA 23.09 JM 23.25

Again more A standards, and faster by position with 6 weeks less of the season.

Some other things to consider, last year's 10th best male 100m was the best 10th fastest ever, but that was over an entire season not just to July.

Have we really gone backwads regardless of age in general in sprinting? No.

As for it's not just a sprint issue at elite level, I take it you disagree with Stan Greenburgh's assessment that by this year's trials statistically we were having out best year yet.

[ultragirl]

Looks like Bolts got the GB virus now, Blake just whupped his ass.

[BigGut]

Don't know if people will consider this at all relevant, but it is at least interesting. Only the USA, Jamaica and Trinidad currently have 3 athletes this year with the A standard. Then there are two from France, their 3rd fastest is 10.30, St Kitts and Nevis, 3rd fastest 10.24 4th fastest 10.30 and us, 3rd fastest 10.22 4th 10.23 5th 10.24 6th 10.25 7th 10.27 8th 10.29 9th 10.29 10th 10.29 11th 10.30.

Without a doubt we are still clearly one of the top 4 nations in the world at 100m. We are most likely to be the 4th nation with 3 A qualifiers from this year.

It is easy to forget just how good our sprinters are. It is also a fact that only about one third of our top 50 ever set their PB before July. Only 12 UK sprinters hae ever managed to record 10.18 by the end of June, so it isn't as easy or as commo as it may seem.

[bevone]

Sideline, ha ha this is another point and you walked into my trap. I am not saying that you were one of the pro 'plastic Brits' so why are we not allowed to use them in this statistic - you cannot pick and chose and if anything are conceding that they are not British. Also if you read what i said - few marque athletes have gone out there so it is hard to make the point but average athletes have gone there and done well. Many have gone to any school and end up without a specialist coach which is why i would be more specific.

I am all for the build uni system over here, but there is so much finance involved and the student unions would not go for it as neither would the unis. Even if you started with 10 unis, that means several paid staff and assistants per uni. Then where do you think the money comes from? Back in 1998 Florida state uni's sports budget was $60 million coming from tv rights to their major sports and student fees. That means the uni would have to create a market where millions would be raised in revenue for watching student sport. That means paid coaches for those sports as well - student athletes do not get paid either - so you see where this all breaks down! The idea is good but financing it and creating a market is the problem.

Post London there needs to be some joined up thinking as Geoff says because there has been none over the past few years and if anything this has been a spiteful regime with the need to interfere and hinder progress when they cannot get their way and to take ownership of athletes progress. There are several stories where athletes have blossomed this year in spite of a lack of funding based on spiteful policies but where are the success stories where interference has worked. Not all UKA does is bad ad there are some good people working within it but there are many working in it and the home countries who bring very little to the sport and take enough out of it.

The sport needs a major face lift - the only people who seem to be happy are those who work in it - and most have been parachuted into their roles based on relationships rather than ability.

[BigGut]

Bev,

Totally agree about the University system. Cannot see how you could create something in the UK that would match what our youngsters can access in the US FOR FREE without;

A) Spending millions per year to improve facilities and provide professional coaching and support at each of the Unis
B) Spending the majority of that money on foreign students in order to create sufficient depth of competition to make it worthwhile, you simply could not replicate the benefits of the NCAA with purely UK students

If it was funded via UKA you would also not be able to do it without;

C) Annoying so many people who would be up in arms that money was being spent on second rate students instead of higher class athletes who are older
D) Being accussed of poaching if the athletes were coached by the Uni coach rather that their original coach, without which much of the benefit is lost
E) Revisiting the whole argument about having to go to particular centres to benefit from support

It's all well and good people suggesting ideas, but they need to be fully thought through.

[jeremy1]

Great post, Bevone. especially paras 3 and 4.

Too many cosy little bureaucrats and control freaks in athletics here .... so "a la mode". Left overs from New Labour.

[TheRealSub10]

I heard ms douglas lost her funding because of this! But then again there are the finding lists and the other list of money's given to athlete at the head coaches discretion!

I don't think this thing about Douglas is accurate. Montell lost funding when the relay team lost funding - its that simple. Only Kwakye was kept on presumably because she made an Olympic final and began showing signs she may return to her top form again (indoor performances).

[bevone]

real sub4 - again I thank you for correcting me - as i said- I could only assume. Also I should point out that there were lots and last year lots of UK athletes obviously paying their own way to these costly uS camps. My car hire without petrol came to $1000, with food flights and accommodation you are looking at another $1500 to $2000. All the 4 x 100 and 4 x 400 men and women and others who I didn't know i.e. training partners were there - Top funded athletes were allowed to bring training partner/s with them last year i recall.

An addition to a previous post. I hear on the jungle drums that Freya Jones is going to the US and hook up with Rees Hoffa and US javelin record holder breaux Greer's coach Don Babbit at university in Atlanta I think. She has not really improved for the last two years in terms of performance so it will be interesting to see what Don can do. He obviously has met her through the masterclasses he has taken over the past few years and will be an example of a marquee athlete going over there with a recognized coach. Her current performance guaranteeing she will make the NCAA finals and top 5 easily and possibly win over the next 4 years so not only has the masterclasses been profitable but an excellent recruitment tool as well. She obviously feels that our coaches are not up to the task and I imagine UKA would have encouraged it as it is with one of their consultant coaches. This could be the making of her!

[djhdjh]

Bev,

Totally agree about the University system. Cannot see how you could create something in the UK that would match what our youngsters can access in the US FOR FREE without;

A) Spending millions per year to improve facilities and provide professional coaching and support at each of the Unis
B) Spending the majority of that money on foreign students in order to create sufficient depth of competition to make it worthwhile, you simply could not replicate the benefits of the NCAA with purely UK students

If it was funded via UKA you would also not be able to do it without;

C) Annoying so many people who would be up in arms that money was being spent on second rate students instead of higher class athletes who are older
D) Being accussed of poaching if the athletes were coached by the Uni coach rather that their original coach, without which much of the benefit is lost
E) Revisiting the whole argument about having to go to particular centres to benefit from support

It's all well and good people suggesting ideas, but they need to be fully thought through.

Yeah, sorry for not having a fully costed plan ready to go. There is no way we could ever match the NCAA's, let alone quickly, and I'm fully aware of that - I wouldn't advocate such a move given the choice, I'd just prefer it to simply relying on someone else's system of the same thing.

I still think there's got to be something better for athletics in this country, which in terms of breadth of events and depth of talent seems to me to be getting better in the last few years so something's clearly going right somewhere whether that be with the central governing body or not, than simply turning our athletes over to the States and seeing what they can do for us - we'd be relying on British athletics succeeding via the work of people who don't care for it. I also struggle to see how this is different to UKA bringing in foreign coaches to work with our best athletes which many on here are so vehemently against.

I don't know enough to say whether this would work or not. But it smacks to me of giving up on our ability to bring through good athletes and that seems a sad thing at a time when we seem to have British coaches bringing through a lot of good young athletes to senior success. That's not to say the NCAA's aren't fantastic because they obviously are - I know athletes who've gone out there and thrived - and it should be an option (we should be as flexible and individual as possible with athletes) but I don't see the need for it to be the norm.

Having said all that against it, I do think it's an interesting and worthy idea that has been raised.

[Kermit]

A lot of the funding should come from the pot that was originally designed for it - The lottery. With funding for the Olympics no longer required some of what would of gone to the organising of games could be used to start the project and maintain it for at least 5 years.

[Geoff]

I thought it appropriate to add, as you all know, that our women's 4x100 relay team are now outside the world's top 16 and will not qualify for our home Olympics. And also to add I don't believe funding is the issue for this sad state of affairs.

Who to blame - everyone. Who should take responsibility - UKA. For fear of being being told to keep sport politics off this board it is down to policies and management plus it brings into question wider implications for our governing body as well as UK Sport.

[fangio]

Which policy Geoff, the policy of not forcing athletes to run relay races if they don't want to? Are you advocating that UKA centrally should have control over every athlete's racing and training even if they are not funded?

[ultragirl]

I thought it appropriate to add, as you all know, that our women's 4x100 relay team are now outside the world's top 16 and will not qualify for our home Olympics. And also to add I don't believe funding is the issue for this sad state of affairs.

Who to blame - everyone. Who should take responsibility - UKA. For fear of being being told to keep sport politics off this board it is down to policies and management plus it brings into question wider implications for our governing body as well as UK Sport.

Well said geoff, I note that UKAs number one defence lawyer has jumped straight in at you, this action mearly supports what you say!

[fangio]

Sorry, but I ma genuinely asking which policy, if someone says it is a policy whcih has resulted in this I woudl like to know which one. If there is a policy which has lead to this (apart from one of not forcing ahtletes to run races they choose not to) then i woudl like to know what it is. if there isn't I don't think that a review of policies is going to help. I don't see anythign unreasonable in that position, and I would like Geoff to let me know which policy he thinks was responsible, just saying it is a failure of policy and management doesn't really tell me what he thinks was at fault.

[iain]

I don't know about policies but the fault is that no relay races were organised by UKA despite the ever more probable threat of elimination from the olympics.

[SteveK26]

I don't know about policies but the fault is that no relay races were organised by UKA despite the ever more probable threat of elimination from the olympics.

Exactly. Leadership comes from the top, doesn't it?