jjimbojames wrote:Bev- of course these 'new' Brits are not a product of the UKA system but is that the way to be defining things. You say they will be taking the place of GB based athletes, but so too will Mo, Paula and many others who train abroad e.g. Kenya for distance guys. What happens to those that go to a US university / train elsewhere? Did you disregard Tasha Danvers' medal in Beijing, as she was based in the US from her uni days?
Which is precisely why the cycling model doesn't work although UK Sport tried to force it on all governing bodies. It is clear in our sport that athletes will train all over the world so UKA should focus on support, coordination and education. The overseas athletes highlight this wider structure/system and could potentially lead to changes in how funding is best used.
A potential breakdown of medallists in London could see some based mainly overseas, some not based at all at UKA centres, some not having a UKA employed coach, some having a volunteer coach, some not on funding as well as a few UKA coached athletes. It's a mish-mash that requires reviewing and a fairer, more harmonised structure/system established.
We have a good crop of athletes and many will be training harder than ever to make the Olympic team regardless of where they are from or where they are based. Hopefully, there will be a good medal haul but athletics needs to operate a system that is best for our sport and reflects this diversity which has always been there.