Delano Williams

[Geoff]

London 2012 Olympics: Turks and Caicos sprint sensation Delano Williams becomes latest Team GB recruit

Delano Williams, a teenage sprint prodigy from the Turks and Caicos islands, is to become the latest overseas athlete to seek selection for the British Olympic team this summer after receiving his UK passport just four days ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... cruit.html

I think this youngster is an outstanding prospect and likely to run faster than his recent 20.53 over 200m. I look forward to him mixing it with the likes of Christian Malcolm, Marlon Devonish and our other 200m runners at the trials.

For me there is no issue over eligibility nor appropriate potential future funding/support. There are questions over how effective UKA will be judged if the proportion of overseas athletes rises too much and perhaps the reaction of some domestic Brits who risk losing out on a place in London.

Having said that he's an exciting prospect and could attract a lot of media attention this summer.

[fangio]

Geoff we get it, you want o have a go at UKA if they let British Citizens comepte for them and they are successful despite nto having grown up under UKA. You want to have ago if succesful diaspora with natural talent choose to compete for the UK and form a large part of the team, as if UKA can stop them.Personally I have no problem with it, so many athetles develop in other countries, or under foreign coaches, any system that allows the athelte to develop in the way/country they feel most suitable is fine by me.

[Geoff]

Geoff we get it, you want o have a go at UKA if they let British Citizens comepte for them and they are successful despite nto having grown up under UKA. You want to have ago if succesful diaspora with natural talent choose to compete for the UK and form a large part of the team, as if UKA can stop them.Personally I have no problem with it, so many athetles develop in other countries, or under foreign coaches, any system that allows the athelte to develop in the way/country they feel most suitable is fine by me.

But that's not been the UK Sport strategy. They've wanted a home grown elite performance set-up and fund governing bodies as such. Taking this to an absurd extreme we could have GB member training abroad and then you need ajust a few coordintors to oversee the athletes. Whatever you think it is not what UKS/government want to see and it will affect UKA in the future. Nothing to do with eligibility. Nothing to do with appropriate funding for the athlete. But a lot to do with the effectiveness of UKA and, I go back to proportionality, it will have a lot to do with numbers.

You supported to the hilt Dave Collins and the performance management set-up. Rightly or wrongly that system went despite your undying support! Most people believe there are issues here that will lead to further changes post London.

[bevone]

Fangio - that was a bit harsh response to Geoff - he has supported yet another 'import' who is not part of UKA system,thus. this should be reflective on post games reporting

[readtherules]

Fangio - that was a bit harsh response to Geoff - he has supported yet another 'import' who is not part of UKA system,thus. this should be reflective on post games reporting

bev,

Be aware that Fangio makes things up from mystery documents that he refuses to provide a single part of to substatiate any truth of.Many have complained of this tactic and one that causes topics to grind to a halt.He will, by some form of automatic response, mis-contruct and make up comment from other posters.By the time multple corrections are tabled the topic,again,grinds to a halt.More frustating is that when chapter and verse corrections are provided Fangio then refuses to say sorry or in anyway apologise for mis-contructing posters comments.I note that yet again he embarks on this tactic with Geoff.

[BigGut]

RTR,

Fangio abelled one rule from the Olympic charter incorrectly. You on the other hand make up non existent meanings for things constantly. Ease don't confuse an honest mistake which made no difference, ie the rule quoted was in the IOC rules verbatim, with what you do on every damned thread.

[readtherules]

RTR,

Fangio abelled one rule from the Olympic charter incorrectly. You on the other hand make up non existent meanings for things constantly. Ease don't confuse an honest mistake which made no difference, ie the rule quoted was in the IOC rules verbatim, with what you do on every damned thread.

well,tweedle dee,what a surprise you come to the rescue of Fangio ,aks tweedle dum.

You like the other tweedle fail to deal with Fangio making up some doc that refered to KPI's.You are fully aware of this as you entered the fangio defence with some strange ref to a "zac".No more detail was provided by either you or your chum.As for the charter,fangio claimed to have seen this in an other post but again refused to clarify or explain.

The pair of you mis-represent posters,fail to read any links,fail to provide on single item or original material or links.

You state.

"You on the other hand make up non existent meanings for things constantly"

I have opinions on matters and provide links and argument to support.The pair of you on the other hand only frustrate debate by misinformation and mis-representation.

[BigGut]

There you go again. there is a massive difference between making up a document and not having a copy of something that was last discussed a couple of years ago on another matter. In this instance it was discussed during a debate on the KPIs used by UK Sport. It was their funding agreement document. It hasn't been made up, it does exist, but it's just nobody has a copy of it to hand. that isn't exactly unusual is it.

[BigGut]

As for failing to read links. You copnsistantly post links to massive documents claiming that they support your argument, without actually saying where or how they do this. A few times people have actually bothered to try to read the whole thing and it's been shown that hey don't actually support anything you say.

If you want to say that documents support your argument then quote from them and say how this supports your argument.

[readtherules]

As for failing to read links. You copnsistantly post links to massive documents claiming that they support your argument, without actually saying where or how they do this. A few times people have actually bothered to try to read the whole thing and it's been shown that hey don't actually support anything you say.

If you want to say that documents support your argument then quote from them and say how this supports your argument.

It was Fangio that tried to interpret Beloff in a way that was tangental to his whole argument and this was done without reading or refering to what Beloff said.

When there is a whole academic paper on a theme you have to make the effort and read it.Sometimes things are not so simple as may be wished and some effort is needed.

Are you still happy about supporting fangio on his references to KPI docs that seem to have zero existiance.

However any problems you have with me do not in any regard dismiss my complaints about Fangio and the way you blindly rush in to support him.

[BigGut]

The UK Sport document which discussed how KPIs were calculated for the sports did exist and an excerpt was provided by Mr C Zacharides in a debate sparked by his FOI request tribunal in 2010. I cannot find a copy of the master document that Zac was using, but I can show refernce to the funding agreement document in the official court records on page 13 item 60. That proves that this document existed. I can't prove to you that I saw it, because I don't keep copies of everything I ever read, but I did. Incidentally the debate centred around the fact that item 60 is in fact wrong. The document clearly stated that the KPI was percentage of funded athletes that medalled and finalled not the percentage of the team sent.

So don't say that it is referring to non existant documents. That is a lie. before it was a mistaken assertion, but now that I have shown that court records show it's existance it would be a lie.

http://www.british-athletics.co.uk/foster/foi_trib.htm

Please note that the link to the actual document does not work. This is not the work of somebody trying to protect UKA, as the site owner is probably one of the most vehemntly anti UKA people on the planet, Zac.

[Guto Nyth Bran]

Changing tack slightly.
http://www.anguillanews.com/enews/index ... /4218.html
Notable here is the 100 m run of Zharnal Hughes (born July 95).
10.60 as a sixteen year old looks promising although you can't tell the conditions of the race.
Is he the "new" Delano Williams?

[Guto Nyth Bran]

William Hill latest betting - they were quick!
Men's 200m - Delano Williams
Qualify for Olympics 8/11
Final 7/2
Medal 33/1
Win 200/1

[readtherules]

The UK Sport document which discussed how KPIs were calculated for the sports did exist and an excerpt was provided by Mr C Zacharides in a debate sparked by his FOI request tribunal in 2010. I cannot find a copy of the master document that Zac was using, but I can show refernce to the funding agreement document in the official court records on page 13 item 60. That proves that this document existed. I can't prove to you that I saw it, because I don't keep copies of everything I ever read, but I did. Incidentally the debate centred around the fact that item 60 is in fact wrong. The document clearly stated that the KPI was percentage of funded athletes that medalled and finalled not the percentage of the team sent.

So don't say that it is referring to non existant documents. That is a lie. before it was a mistaken assertion, but now that I have shown that court records show it's existance it would be a lie.

http://www.british-athletics.co.uk/foster/foi_trib.htm

Please note that the link to the actual document does not work. This is not the work of somebody trying to protect UKA, as the site owner is probably one of the most vehemntly anti UKA people on the planet, Zac.

Big g.

OK we have some progress,but not from Fangio.
He could have easily said the applicable document seems to be.

"UK Sport/UKA 2005-2009 Funding Agreement"

How this relates to KPI's if at all is still not clear.

There is a later doc for the current period but a quickish hunt could not turn it up.

You will recall I made several attempts to get Fangio to give some form of hint as to what he was refering to and eventually suggested that if not a hint could be produced then he is misleading.We now have a hint from you but as you note the funding doc could not be opened.

[fangio]

Bev/Geoff

It's just that essentially this is a thread made to make exactly the same poitn as has been made on other threads. It just gets a bit boring.

As to the system, UKS have not said that the system should be a single path with centralised coaching of all athletes and only home grown ones, they want a central system that is available, but not as the only strand. Why would anyone pretend it was otherwise?

I could not care less whether one set of British Atheltes are left at home because better British athletes are available. I do not see why UKS woudl be against sendingthe best atheltes either.

RTR the entire funding agreement with KPI'sis 11mb, you want the info from it, go get it yourself, but at 11mb there is a lot of context and definition involved, so No I will nto be posting up individual sections. It's name is "National Governing Body Funding Agreement". If you think that there is no such document as the funding agreement then you are deluded. I don't know why you posted on this topic apart from just to attack me, but hey ho, the bully in the playground doesn't need a reason to attack it's in his nature. Keep up the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee refernces, it highlights that you are just being abusive and do not have any valid poitn to make.

[bevone]

fangio

YOu do not seem to graps the issue because you talk around it and never respond to the question just comeout with your own rhetorical staetments about pathways and centralised coaching systems! THis is what Geoff has said

1. He welcomes the new athletes who have every right to compete for GB as they ahve passports
2. The funding that comes with it may also have helped their decision
3. Many of these dont train here or never have so cannot really be classed as products of the system and moeny that has been put into the sport.
I make this point as the sport is accountable and after the OG there will be investigations into what wentright and wrong.
4. Any medals they bring should be classed as bonuses adn the 8 medal tally should be achived by home grown athletes otherwise it gives an inaccurate view of how successful the coaching system and moeny spent has worked. CVC was sayng how great the indoor performance was- and it was - but why is he taking credit for it when half of the medalsit are coached and learned their trade overseas. iIm sure he wil be the same if it happends in the summer when many of us will realise it is not the whole story. What we should look at is the value added

The indoor champs recently got our best medal haul except take out the so called plastics then we hd 3-5. When the current adminstratioon took over, we had just had ourbest junior adn U23 adn indoor results as well as outdoor success. Just like the labour party took over a bouyent economy, 12 years later the handed back a bankrupt crap one - that is not what we want. I wouldnt pay too much attentin to the indoors anyway as it isnt a true reflection of the state of anything as most dont do it which is probably what i would have said if i ruled!!!!

The premiership is th strongeest football league and richest, but this has not really ha a postve effect on our national teams. Modern managers buy a foreign team rather than develop one adn our investen in foreign coahes has not done the natioanal team any favours including shelving the plans for a natinal accademy in the midlands- why would a foreign coach be bothered with that ?

[fangio]

Bev, I don't see any questions at all in Geoff's post I responded to, not one, so I apologise if I did not reply to a question raised.

With regard to the proposal that any non homegrown athletes be separate to the medal target, why? The original target was not set based upon every athlete having been coached under UKA so why now is an issue, I thought the target was the target of the GB team regardless fo who coached them where they are coached etc. Why measure the success of the UKA "system" by only counting the centralised part, not the part where funding is given but not centralised?

As it stands the medal count is not how UKA's WCPP program is judged. The medal count/proportion of medallists and finallists from those on the program, regardless of who coaches them, where they are based and where they developed is what is measured, because it is the success of those who are on the funding that is measured. The system itself give the funding and allows athetles to be coached wherever by whoever. Seemingly people think that UKA should be forced to have a system whereby every athlete is forced to be coached where UKA say by UKA appointed coaches. That is nto the system, so why would that be the system which success is measured for? WCPP is not given to develop athletes from YA to Senior, it is given to help those at the top push on further.

Funding is given to have a centralised system available, it is available, but he best atheltes may not use it. The provision is what it is there for.

[Geoff]

Just wait and see what happens post London as many factors will lead to substantial changes in funding and structure.

Before that we should see an exciting 200m trial in Birmingham with the possiblity Williams going down to very low 20sec. It should be exciting and draw a lot of media interest, most of which will be positive but some will raise issues discussed on this and other threads. I'm looking forward to it!

[Guto Nyth Bran]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympi ... ds-newsxml
Story's reached the Daily Mail.

[readtherules]

Bev, I don't see any questions at all in Geoff's post I responded to, not one, so I apologise if I did not reply to a question raised.

With regard to the proposal that any non homegrown athletes be separate to the medal target, why? The original target was not set based upon every athlete having been coached under UKA so why now is an issue, I thought the target was the target of the GB team regardless fo who coached them where they are coached etc. Why measure the success of the UKA "system" by only counting the centralised part, not the part where funding is given but not centralised?

As it stands the medal count is not how UKA's WCPP program is judged. The medal count/proportion of medallists and finallists from those on the program, regardless of who coaches them, where they are based and where they developed is what is measured, because it is the success of those who are on the funding that is measured. The system itself give the funding and allows athetles to be coached wherever by whoever. Seemingly people think that UKA should be forced to have a system whereby every athlete is forced to be coached where UKA say by UKA appointed coaches. That is nto the system, so why would that be the system which success is measured for? WCPP is not given to develop athletes from YA to Senior, it is given to help those at the top push on further.

Funding is given to have a centralised system available, it is available, but he best atheltes may not use it. The provision is what it is there for.

The WCPP is judged medals.However this means that they can come via any route inc the Delano Williams route.They dont need to come from those who are on the Hipac and UKA appointed coaches route but that is the model of centralisation that UKS want and they are the paymasters.There is now a good body of evidence that UKA are putting pressure on athletes to "join up" and this is being applied by funding decisions.This could be a very reasonable plan if the feeling is that coach x in location y cant produce the improvements and thus funding would be a waste.
However all this is shouded in mysteries of old coaching rivalries,empire building,and dancing to UKS's tune.
To say that pressure,reasonable or not,is not being applied is to avoid the realities at the sharp end of our sport.

[BigGut]

There is now a good body of evidence that UKA are putting pressure on athletes to "join up" and this is being applied by funding decisions

Please provide the evidence of this as I have seen not one peice of evidence of anything of the sort or any other poster implying that UKA are actively recruiting. You just blandly stating it without giving any information is not sufficient to make somethig true.

[boysen]

Perhaps not this year but it must be possible for half a dozen Kenyans to transfer, by whatever means...add a few similar to those who have recently taken the Queen's shilling and we may emerge with a dozen medallists of whom only a couple are "home grown". What would the position be? To take the money might be considered unethical at best?

[BigGut]

Boysen,

Are we looking for UK born Kenyans and Kenyans of UK parentage here. Or are we trying to make Kenya a British Overseas Territory. They are the reasons that these athletes are eligible. The UK team hasn't been added to like Bahrain, basically buying in talent and giving them citizenship purely to let them compete. If this was what was being done i am sure there would be outrage, but it isn't.

If there is a UK born athlete of kenyan descent would anybody really object to them representing the UK?

[jjimbojames]

There is now a good body of evidence that UKA are putting pressure on athletes to "join up" and this is being applied by funding decisions

Please provide the evidence of this as I have seen not one peice of evidence of anything of the sort or any other poster implying that UKA are actively recruiting. You just blandly stating it without giving any information is not sufficient to make somethig true.

Quite is wrongly attributed - it was readtherules that wrote this.

Either way, I agree - I'm yet to see such evidence that UKA are going out there - more has been made of the athletes wanting the funding

[jjimbojames]

There is now a good body of evidence that UKA are putting pressure on athletes to "join up" and this is being applied by funding decisions

Please provide the evidence of this as I have seen not one peice of evidence of anything of the sort or any other poster implying that UKA are actively recruiting. You just blandly stating it without giving any information is not sufficient to make somethig true.

Quote is wrongly attributed - it was readtherules that wrote this.

Either way, I agree - I'm yet to see such evidence that UKA are going out there - more has been made of the athletes wanting the funding

[2dodgy]

Bev,

You say quite a few things in your recent post, some of which I agree with, some I don't. I do feel though that you have exagerated the position somewhat and would like to check that I have the facts correct.

You state that "half of the medalsit(sic) are coached and learned their trade overseas." when refering to CVC's reaction to the record medal haul at this year's World Indoor Championships. I disagree with your statement, however my understanding may be flawed and I would welcome correction on any that I have wrong.

Medalists

Gold
Yamile Aldama (Lived in the UK for 11 years, trains under Frank Attoh at Barnet Copthall and also coaches there)
Women's 4x400m relay team;
Shana Cox (Raised in the States, since switching allegiance she has been part of Lloyd Cowan's training group and I believe she lives in London with her Grandmother)
Nicola Sanders (Tony Lester, Lee Valley)
Christine Ohuruogu (Lloyd Cowan, Lee Valley)
Perri Shakes-Drayton (Chris Zah, Mile End)

Silver
Jessica Ennis (Toni Minichiello)
Tiffany Porter (Raised and lives in the States for the majority of the year, spends the summer months in London, where she trains with Lloyd Cowan's group)
Men's 4x400m relay team;
Conrad Williams (Linford Christie, Brunel)
Nigel Levine (Linford Christie)
Michael Bingham (Kevin Tyler, Loughborough, previously based in the States, he has spent the autumn and winter of 2011/12 living and training in Lougborough)
Richard Buck (Kevin Tyler, Loughborough)

Bronze
Holly Bleasdale (Julien Raffalli-Ebezant, Manchester)
Shara Proctor (Rana Reider, Daytona Beach Florida. Shara was born and raised in Anguilla, she lives and trains in the States with her traing group for most of the year, she spent last summer in Birmingham working with Aston Moore)
Dwain Chambers (Self coached, Lee Valley)
Andrew Osagie (Craig Winrow, St Mary's)

Of the 15 medal winning athletes I calculate that, using the most loose definition of "overseas", only one third (5) of them are currently coached overseas, or indeed learned their trade overseas. In fact, if we were to include those who have been UK based for the majority of the last twelve months as non-"overseas", that figure would drop to 2 of the 15 (Shara and Tiffany).

I suppose though, that if you are trying to make a point or maybe even fan the flames, then saying that two fifteenths of the medalists are overseas based athletes just doesnt have the same level of impact.

But that's just my opinion.


Guto,

Did you notice that the Mail managed to forget to include the fact that T&C have no National Olympic Committee and therefore Delano can't compete for them at the Olympics? Unusual that, the Mail normally present such a balanced picture!

On a personal level, I would have no issue with Delano competing for Turks and Caicos at the World Juniors and then, if he achieves the qualification, Great Britain at the Olympics. If he was to then qualify for, and accept funding from UKA, I would expect him to compete exclusively for GB & NI.

Again, just my opinion.

[BigGut]

Apologies Guto. I just selected the text and used the quote function, didn't spot who it had attributed it to.

[BigGut]

Does the Mail object to David Beckham oplaying football for the UK team at the Olympics? Of course not.

Delano Williams is as much a part of the United Kingdom team as anybody who plays in the football team. This is because for Olympic purposes the whole of the UK and many of it's overseas territories is one team. For IAAF competition the UK is split from most of it's overseas territories, whilst for FIFA it is split further into the home nations as well as splitting it from the overseas territories.

Perhaps the Mail would like to tell inhabitants of the Falkland Islands that it does not consider them to be British enough, because Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands share the same status as the Falklands.

[bevone]

Not that I want to get into any debate about this but the facts are these

Aldama born and raised in Cuba and immigrated as a world class athlete
Porter - born and raised in USA and learned her trade there
COx - born and raised in USA and learned her trade there
Proctor - born and raised overseas and learned her trade there
Bingham - didnt count him but born and rasied in uSa and learned his trade there

you could also add, Dwaine chambres - born and raised here - went over there and got banned for steroids
Porter - I seem to recall recently that she had bought a big house in the US with her husband where she lives and trains!
By the way the relay is one medal not 4 and if that person was not in the relay who knows what the result would be but they were used so that counts hence i will amend my score to 2 relays, 100hw, ljw, tjw 5 out of 8 medals and another from a guy who got banned for drugs (I like him but it is a fact unfortunately if that is what we will go by). So not 2 out of 15. We are talking about events and nobody counts relay as 4 medals on any stat chart of medal count so you are the one who is stretching or fanning things.

If you want - you can and pretend that this is not the case and the fact that Proctor 'did some trainging with Aston moore' is why she is where she is, and the others as well is fanciful. IF you are also saying that poping over for the summer and staying with a relative and joining a UKA funded squad has put them where they are now - you really do not know much about athletics.

I welcome these athletes but let us not pretend that they are in some way an example of some sort of smooth process from fun to fulfillment model that started with sports hall, junior athletics, mcdonalds league, u20 and BAL UKWAL to internatinal level to lottery funding programmes of Development up to potential then podium and olympic medals because it is not. I think we would all rather be honest and say they found the sport and devleope their skils elsewhre and then used their passport quite legitmately and joined the Gb team. THE milions put into the sport have not produced this performance - eg this new lad has never set foot on gb track but could be winning a relay medal for us in August - great for us but nothing to do with the investment and the processes in the sport.

I am not fanning anything, I am just a little dissappointed like many others the way the sport is run and the fct tht we have not got more from the money that has been invested. I will be supporting all the team as i hope everyone will but the fact that one or two keep bleeting on about not caring where the medals came from and your point that someone did some training last year with aston moore does not hide the fact that the funding seems to wasted and when they come to account for it, the devil really is in th detail. If there was no funding - nobody would care and i daare say there wouldnt be a problem of plaastic brits. Even Rogge has criticised britain for this and other foreign sites are mockign us for it as well. cant Fangio and co even concede to the fact that these foreign imports are not a reflection of the investment into the sport adn insome cases will be taking the place of gb based athletes?
We all seem to concede that it is good for the team but recognise it for what it is.

[jjimbojames]

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?