ORIENTEERING: The latest joke
My plans to do some work this morning were side-tracked when receiving an e-mail which managed to both amuse and anger me.
The IOF Foot-O Committee have considered some rule changes, including this change to Rule 6.6:
6.6 (WOC)Give the 6 best placed at each individual distance at the previous WOC an extra place to their nation, max 1 extra pro (sic) nation. The winner from last WOC still have a personal place. Race (sic) the number to go to the final from the qualification to 17 from each group, so that there are 51 in the final.
The reasoning behind this is "To ensure that the best runners at each distanse are present, especially on the sprint we learnt this last year in EOC and WOC."
The creators of this wonderful idea obviously have thought that by adding 6 places at the top and giving an extra 6 places at the bottom, they can slip this little masterstroke through the system without anyone blinking an eyelid. Er, wrong, think again.
What sport (that wants to be treated seriously) panders to the top nations by giving them extra chances to get it right? If this is such a brilliant idea, let's have two Brazilian teams at the soccer world cup, three Australian teams playing test cricket, NZ Maori in the rugby world cup and a World Cross-Country Championship consisting of 50 Kenyan and Ethiopian runners and some token white guy from Italy or somewhere.
The fact is in most sports, if you happen to live in a nation that is the best in the world, it is almost as hard to represent your country as it is to become world champion. A Norwegian orienteer is in the same situation as an American sprinter, Kenyan middle-distance athlete or Australian swimmer. C'EST LA VIE!!!
Top-level sporting competitions demand equality in participation. Anything else, quite frankly, is a crock of shit. Especially in a sport trying to portray an image that it is ready for the Olympics. "Yes, Mr Rogge, we allow 4 runners from Norway, Sweden and Switzerland because runners from outside the top 6 nations are so shit they don't really deserve to be here". That really is going to fast-track our sport's progress to the Olympic stage.
Given this latest masterpiece from the corridors of international orienteering, I'm tempted to lead a crusade to have the extra place given to the defending world champion kicked out (not that I will get anywhere, but it would be fun trying). Perhaps those in Scandinavia need to reflect on the fact if an orienteer, even from Norway, cannot make their national team, then they don't have much claim to be considered one of the "best runners" in the world.
Footnote: Also included in the proposed changes is an increase in team size to 9. If accepted, that allows the strong nations to have their best 3 at each discipline race at the World Championships. So the reasoning given - "to ensure that the best runners at each distanse are present" - becomes redundant.
The IOF Foot-O Committee have considered some rule changes, including this change to Rule 6.6:
6.6 (WOC)Give the 6 best placed at each individual distance at the previous WOC an extra place to their nation, max 1 extra pro (sic) nation. The winner from last WOC still have a personal place. Race (sic) the number to go to the final from the qualification to 17 from each group, so that there are 51 in the final.
The reasoning behind this is "To ensure that the best runners at each distanse are present, especially on the sprint we learnt this last year in EOC and WOC."
The creators of this wonderful idea obviously have thought that by adding 6 places at the top and giving an extra 6 places at the bottom, they can slip this little masterstroke through the system without anyone blinking an eyelid. Er, wrong, think again.
What sport (that wants to be treated seriously) panders to the top nations by giving them extra chances to get it right? If this is such a brilliant idea, let's have two Brazilian teams at the soccer world cup, three Australian teams playing test cricket, NZ Maori in the rugby world cup and a World Cross-Country Championship consisting of 50 Kenyan and Ethiopian runners and some token white guy from Italy or somewhere.
The fact is in most sports, if you happen to live in a nation that is the best in the world, it is almost as hard to represent your country as it is to become world champion. A Norwegian orienteer is in the same situation as an American sprinter, Kenyan middle-distance athlete or Australian swimmer. C'EST LA VIE!!!
Top-level sporting competitions demand equality in participation. Anything else, quite frankly, is a crock of shit. Especially in a sport trying to portray an image that it is ready for the Olympics. "Yes, Mr Rogge, we allow 4 runners from Norway, Sweden and Switzerland because runners from outside the top 6 nations are so shit they don't really deserve to be here". That really is going to fast-track our sport's progress to the Olympic stage.
Given this latest masterpiece from the corridors of international orienteering, I'm tempted to lead a crusade to have the extra place given to the defending world champion kicked out (not that I will get anywhere, but it would be fun trying). Perhaps those in Scandinavia need to reflect on the fact if an orienteer, even from Norway, cannot make their national team, then they don't have much claim to be considered one of the "best runners" in the world.
Footnote: Also included in the proposed changes is an increase in team size to 9. If accepted, that allows the strong nations to have their best 3 at each discipline race at the World Championships. So the reasoning given - "to ensure that the best runners at each distanse are present" - becomes redundant.
Labels: orienteering
posted by Rob Crawford at 10:34 AM
1 Comments:
Crawford for head of IOF!
Post a Comment
<< Home