Prophet Rob
I'll give cricket a rest today - nightly all-nighters on a flea-infested couch is starting to wear me down and I can't wait for a 2 day break after tonight's game where Oz will thrash WI (or will they? it 'tis afterall on the Mumbai Minefield and bad pitches can turn games into a lottery).
I haven't done an Orienteering post for a while and with all the kerfuffle over the World Cup rules for 2007 and the allocation of places for nations, why should I change the habit of a lifetime and not chuck in my 2 cents worth?
In some respects, I feel a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Given the history of participation by non-European (excluding Australia) and financially weak European nations in World Cups, whether you have 1 or 3 places is not exactly critical - the chances are participation from some of these nations will still equal zero. Yes, there is a chance the new format of the World Cup will be attractive to these countries and the entries will increase, but given the financial state of these countries (and their elite runners), there is also a chance that it will not. As an aside, one of the benefits of the new World Cup being attached to existing high-profile events is runners from the likes of USA and Israel will be able to get into the elite fields at these events, something that was a pipedream in the past - but I guess no-one has stopped to recognise that.
The negative reaction to the rules was initially voiced by a Canadian runner who has a 9th placing at a World Championships in her resume, and for those in the Orienteering world who hasn't read her thoughts, they can be viewed at her blog here. While I don't agree with everything she says, I certainly admire and respect her for voicing her opinion and more importantly making sure it was heard. Her initial reaction has led to debate and possibly concessions in the rules, which she opines don't go far enough.
But personally I wonder at the wisdom of fighting so hard for the 3 guaranteed places for these nations. History has shown they are not exactly used with any great frequency, and the economy of these nations and their runners suggest that won't change in a hurry, so why the big song and dance? As Sandy herself points out in her blog, "I can't guarantee that we will be able to use our spots if we get them", well sorry Sandy, now that this has become an issue of Micr-O proportions, you have now created a situation where nations such as yours and mine are virtually compelled to ensure their quota (whatever it may be) is filled to "save face" politically. In sporting politics when you are a flea (sorry, they are on my mind - or more correctly my legs at the moment) you pick your battles carefully; I don't know if this was a wise one to fight.
Certainly I can understand and am not surprised at the reaction - as those close to me know I like blowing my own trumpet and an article written for the magazine "Orienteering Today" 12 months ago should be re-read (it's in the blog archives under Orienteering and it's called Global Growing Pains) and applied to the current debate over World Cup quota. I especially like this bit - "too many decisions that benefit one section of the international orienteering community at the expense of another will divide, rather than unify, our sport" - and if it wasn't for the malaise I feel in that statement I would be gloating over such prophecy. So the reaction to the World Cup rules has as much to do with yet another perceived benefit for the "haves" over the "have nots" as actual substance, and it's fair enough, there's only so many times you can stand being kicked when you're on the floor.
But the debate over the quota masks the real problem that needs to be addressed, and something that Sandy touches on in her latest piece - the global development of elite orienteering. To use her words: "The development of elite orienteering in general outside of Europe is a much broader, long-term and important concept which the IOF should be deeply interested in" (I have to bite my tongue here otherwise this article will get deeply cynical). If as much time and effort went in to addressing elite global development as there is bickering about whether Mongolia gets 1 or 3 places in the 2007 World Cup, perhaps the optimism levels would rise. But they won't, because the bottom line is there is not enough willpower within the powers that be to tackle the issue - either because of vested self-interest or it's in the "too hard" basket, possibly both.
So chalk up another episode of divisiveness in international orienteering, something a sport with no money and little visibility can afford. I don't look forward to reading these words in 12 months time and thinking nothing has changed, but as a cynical ageing gambler I'd bet that's what will happen.
I haven't done an Orienteering post for a while and with all the kerfuffle over the World Cup rules for 2007 and the allocation of places for nations, why should I change the habit of a lifetime and not chuck in my 2 cents worth?
In some respects, I feel a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Given the history of participation by non-European (excluding Australia) and financially weak European nations in World Cups, whether you have 1 or 3 places is not exactly critical - the chances are participation from some of these nations will still equal zero. Yes, there is a chance the new format of the World Cup will be attractive to these countries and the entries will increase, but given the financial state of these countries (and their elite runners), there is also a chance that it will not. As an aside, one of the benefits of the new World Cup being attached to existing high-profile events is runners from the likes of USA and Israel will be able to get into the elite fields at these events, something that was a pipedream in the past - but I guess no-one has stopped to recognise that.
The negative reaction to the rules was initially voiced by a Canadian runner who has a 9th placing at a World Championships in her resume, and for those in the Orienteering world who hasn't read her thoughts, they can be viewed at her blog here. While I don't agree with everything she says, I certainly admire and respect her for voicing her opinion and more importantly making sure it was heard. Her initial reaction has led to debate and possibly concessions in the rules, which she opines don't go far enough.
But personally I wonder at the wisdom of fighting so hard for the 3 guaranteed places for these nations. History has shown they are not exactly used with any great frequency, and the economy of these nations and their runners suggest that won't change in a hurry, so why the big song and dance? As Sandy herself points out in her blog, "I can't guarantee that we will be able to use our spots if we get them", well sorry Sandy, now that this has become an issue of Micr-O proportions, you have now created a situation where nations such as yours and mine are virtually compelled to ensure their quota (whatever it may be) is filled to "save face" politically. In sporting politics when you are a flea (sorry, they are on my mind - or more correctly my legs at the moment) you pick your battles carefully; I don't know if this was a wise one to fight.
Certainly I can understand and am not surprised at the reaction - as those close to me know I like blowing my own trumpet and an article written for the magazine "Orienteering Today" 12 months ago should be re-read (it's in the blog archives under Orienteering and it's called Global Growing Pains) and applied to the current debate over World Cup quota. I especially like this bit - "too many decisions that benefit one section of the international orienteering community at the expense of another will divide, rather than unify, our sport" - and if it wasn't for the malaise I feel in that statement I would be gloating over such prophecy. So the reaction to the World Cup rules has as much to do with yet another perceived benefit for the "haves" over the "have nots" as actual substance, and it's fair enough, there's only so many times you can stand being kicked when you're on the floor.
But the debate over the quota masks the real problem that needs to be addressed, and something that Sandy touches on in her latest piece - the global development of elite orienteering. To use her words: "The development of elite orienteering in general outside of Europe is a much broader, long-term and important concept which the IOF should be deeply interested in" (I have to bite my tongue here otherwise this article will get deeply cynical). If as much time and effort went in to addressing elite global development as there is bickering about whether Mongolia gets 1 or 3 places in the 2007 World Cup, perhaps the optimism levels would rise. But they won't, because the bottom line is there is not enough willpower within the powers that be to tackle the issue - either because of vested self-interest or it's in the "too hard" basket, possibly both.
So chalk up another episode of divisiveness in international orienteering, something a sport with no money and little visibility can afford. I don't look forward to reading these words in 12 months time and thinking nothing has changed, but as a cynical ageing gambler I'd bet that's what will happen.
Labels: orienteering
posted by Rob Crawford at 2:33 PM
1 Comments:
Hi Rob! I really like your article "Global Growing Pains". I think we actually do agree on the issues, it's just that you're so much better at formulating your thoughts than I am.
Although you may not agree, I think that the "WC2007 Special Rules" are part of the same issue. While the "minimum 1 vs 3" battle may be insignificant in the big scheme of things, it is just the latest of a long line of Euro-centric decisions that the FOC has continued for some time now. How long are we going to bend over for the IOF? Keep our mouths shut to avoid causing a stir? I don't agree that we should just accept these changes on the grounds of "Oh well, it doesn't matter, we probably wouldn't use the spots anyway". The point is that the door should be kept open!
Changing the minimum from 1 to 3 constitutes a truly minor change to the allotment system -- the central spirit of the rules stays the same. But it would be an important gesture from the IOF showing that they in fact do care about international elite development. So far there have been very few practical indications of that.
I might be only a flea, but now I am a flea on the IOF's back. Maybe after a while they will notice me.
Post a Comment
<< Home