insidethegames.biz -Niels de Vos: UK Athletics offers better value for money than any sport in Britain

Fact of the day

Each Olympic medal must be at least three millimeters thick and 60 millimeters in diameter.
 

Niels de Vos: UK Athletics offers better value for money than any sport in Britain

18 March 2010

John Bicourt questions the return on investment into UK Athletics but sadly his article is characterised by poor research, incorrect facts and simply ill founded assertations.

Mr Bicourt begins by asserting that other sports such as football do not receive public monies. 

In fact, for the promotion of participation and grassroots competition, football (in common with other professional sports such as rugby union, rugby league and tennis) enjoys substantial public sector investment from Sport England, in excess of that received by athletics which does not enjoy the riches of these sports.

Mr Bicourt also misunderstands the roles and responsibilities of UK Athletics. Contrary to his view, we are not funded from the public purse to develop grassroots athletics and participation levels. This responsibility lies with the Home Country Athletics Federations and they are funded directly via their respective Sports Councils in pursuit of these objectives. 

UK Athletics’ role in this is to provide a strategic oversight and direction informed by the elected UK Members Council who represent not only the Home Countries but representatives from clubs, coaching and officials. Currently Sport England are investing (through England Athletics) over £2 million a year directly into club athletics via club coaching programmes and Athletics networks (including some clubs who are part of Mr Bicourt’s own self-appointed and unrepresentative body, the Association of British Athletics Clubs), which is then enhanced thanks to the support of UK Athletics sponsors McCain with a further investment of £1 million.

Where UK Athletics do contribute massively to grassroots athletics is through our primary sponsors Aviva. Over a period of 10 years Aviva have invested £18 milion into the promotion of athletics within British Schools through Star track, Sportshall, Elevating Athletics and more recently the sponsorship of all Home Country Schools Championships (track and field and cross-country).

UK Atheltics' only public money is provided by UK Sport and is correctly focussed on the elite end of our sport - to provide the best training facilities, the best coaching and the best support staff possible.

Again however, the numbers quoted by Mr Bicourt do not tally with reality. UK Athletics' current four year funding agreement with UK Sport see the sport awarded a total of £6 million per annum to fund our Olympic programme. Looked at another way this equates to just £375,000 per year per discipline, making athletics, by disciplines amongst the lowest funded of Olympic sports, and the sport offering perhaps the best value for money of all.

Bear in mind too, that the award is not, as Mr Bicourt asserts, restricted to a "tiny elite level".  Of that £6 million, 25 per cent of the sum every year is invested in ensuring we are able to take full British teams to all major track and fieldchampionships - not just senior teams but junior teams too.



Along with the track and field teams, others, such as the cross-country teams (junior, intermediate and senior men’s and women’s, all of whom returned with team medals from the European Championships in both 2008 and 2009, including Hayley Yelling (pictured) winning the women's race in Dublin last December), our British mountain running, fell running and ultra running teams are again funded from our commercial income and enjoy no public purse support at all.

Mr Bicourt makes a further comment regards public monies in administration - again the facts do not support his claim. All UK Athletics overheads are in fact paid for by our own commercially generated funds. Every penny of UK Sport investment goes directly to our World Class programme to which we ourselves contribute some 15 per cent through commercial funding.

So UK Athletics clearly demonstrates excellent value for money and is one of only a few sports from the Olympic family which raised its own commercial revenue to further invest in the sport which it is internationally recognised and charge to governing.

Finally Mr Bicourt asserts that at elite level the sport is not showing signs of progression. Once again, the facts do not support him. Consider the following statistics looking back at the number of UK medallists over the past three Olympic/World Championship cycles.
 
·         Sydney 2000/Edmonton 2001 – 6
·         Athens 2004/Helsinki 2005 – 12
·         Beijing 2008/Berlin 2009 – 16
 
And for evidence the positive trend is not just at the very top, let us consider top eight placings.
 
·         Sydney/Edmonton – 33
·         Athens/Helsinki – 27
·         Beijing/Berlin – 40
 
As recently as last week’s World Indoors, UK finished fourth in the medals table and fifth in the points table, ranking as the top European nation - a status the majority of British sports would give their right arm or leg for!
 
Last week also saw the publication of the results of the independent Active People survey (IPSOS Mori) which showed that participation in athletics has risen for the fourth consecutive six-month period - demonstrating clearly that our colleagues in England Athletics are also delivery against their remit.
 
So I am sorry Mr Bicourt, but I am afraid the facts do not support your position – I suggest the sport does not either.

Niels de Vos is the chief executive of UK Athletics
 
 
Comments
Add New Search
+/-
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Title:
 
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.
Zac  - Time to close down UK Athletics |20-03-2010 10:13
The fact that the Chief Executive of UK Athletics believes it is possible to isolate his organisation from grass roots athletics is the root of the problem.

The idea that it is possible to shear off the elite pinnacle of a pyramid, and elevate up and away from its supporting body (the grass roots of the sport) is deluded. The only people who believe in this nonsense are those who are soaking up the public money.

It is disingenuous of Niels de Vos to distance himself and UK Athletics from the harm being caused to grass roots athletics. UK Athletics and England Athletics are tiers of the same organisation which is controlled (by way of the formal funding agreements) by UK Sport and Sport England.

The fact that UK Athletics and England Athletics have been allocated distinct roles of Elite and Grass Roots, represents the error in the design of the organisations which is causing the damage to the sport.

Niels de Vos suggests that sport does not support John Bicourt. I can assure him that the sport understands fully the huge debt of gratitude that it owes to John Bicourt for his energy and perseverance.

Even athletes themselves are seeking to organise a protest against UK Athletics for the selection policy which actively prevents British Athletes from competing in major championships. This policy of "the smaller the team, the better we look", is breaking the hearts of athletes up and down the country. Just one thrower represented Great Britain at the 2008 Olympic Games in the men's and women's, shot, discus, hammer and javelin. It is futile asking a team sport rugby man like Niels De Vos, to appreciate the despair caused to isolated athletes.

As regards the "Networks", these are recognised by all the participating clubs as being another mechanism for government interference. The £30,000 headline might look good in political circles, but when the reality is that it must only be used to meet government targets, it can be seen to be a complete waste of a volunteers time and energy. Instead of using a volunteers time they use the £30,000 to pay someone to do the government work. This then become another well paid bureaucrat lecturing volunteers; just what we need. Thank you McCain and UKA for your useless Networks funding.

As regards the supposed Aviva money - these initiatives are perfect examples of how ill conceived the UKA strategies are. Here's an idea for a sports day. Give it a name like Star Track, stick the Aviva logo on the idea, invest huge sums of money promoting it, take lots of photographs of children having a wonderful time, tick all the boxes which say thousands of participants, then everyone goes home as if nothing ever happened.

This plethora of new initiatives led by Star Track have no connectivity with athletics. They lack a clear pathway into mainstream club and county athletics. The root of the problem is the government insistence that new money must not crowd out existing voluntary mon...
Zac  - Time to close down UK Athletics/continued.. |20-03-2010 10:12
This plethora of new initiatives led by Star Track have no connectivity with athletics. They lack a clear pathway into mainstream club and county athletics. The root of the problem is the government insistence that new money must not crowd out existing voluntary money. The result is that every new initiative dreamt up by UKA, and paid for by Aviva, either duplicates and undermines something that already exists, or it represents additional workload for volunteers, and acts like a boil on the outside of the sport, that drains the resources and good will of the sport. Athletics does not need a bouncy castle.

As regards the "commercial funding" that Niels de Vos is so proud of, it is illuminating that by his own pen, he admits that just 15% is invested in athletics. What happens to the other 85%?

Let me give Niels de Vos a brief history lesson on his commercial funding. In the early 1990's the AAA's had 2 million pounds in the bank. Sport England said, "we are not funding you when you have so much of your own money". They then persuaded the AAA's to urinate this £2 million down the drain by investing in a structure called the "regional development coordinators". These 9 people were essentially professional Sport England staff (pretending to be working for the AAA's) with company cars rushing around the regions consulting on initiatives to inject public funding into athletics. No money was generated by these 9 people, and by 2004 a near bankrupt AAA's was cast aside in favour of England Athletics which was wholly owned by Sport England and UK Sport. England Athletics was used as a mechanism to shield UK Athletics from responsibility for the decline in grass roots athletics, and more importantly it claimed ownership of the all the English National Championships which generated the commercial funding.


Finally, beware of UK Athletics personnel quoting statistics. There are better informed individuals who will be queuing up to challenge Niels De Vos's statistics, but I will share a slightly more transparent measurement of elite level progression.
The Olympic Games medals:

(Points calculated on a 3,2,1 basis for Gold, Silver and Bronze)

1980 - 4 Golds, 2 Silvers, 4 Bronzes (20 Pnts)
1984 - 3 Golds, 7 Silvers, 6 Bronzes (29 Pnts)
1988 - 0 Golds, 6 Silvers, 2 Bronzes (14 Pnts)
1992 - 2 Golds, 0 Silvers, 4 Bronzes (10 Pnts)
1996 - 0 Golds, 4 Silvers, 2 Bronzes (10 Pnts)

in late November 1997 UK Athletics was created by UK Sport and Sport England as the mechanism for taking control of Athletics.

2000 - 2 Golds, 2 Silvers, 2 Bronzes (12 Pnts)
2004 - 3 Golds, 0 Silvers, 1 Bronze (10 Pnts)

In 2004 the Foster Review was published and UK Sport/Sport England tightened their grip on athletics by stealing the commercial value of the sport. The decline at elite level continued.


2008 - 1 Gold, 2 Silvers, 1 Bronze (8 Pnts)

Zac
fangio  - Zac what are you wittering on about |20-03-2010 20:06
Zac I can't be bothered to go through and show every mistake in your poorly written illogical and down right misleading response.

Suffice to say your assertion that "As regards the "commercial funding" that Niels de Vos is so proud of, it is illuminating that by his own pen, he admits that just 15% is invested in athletics. What happens to the other 85%? " is typical of the stance of ABAC members and supporters, inlcuding Mr Bicourt.

Do you think you can show me where Mr De Vos said any such thing. I think you will find he said that part of the commercial funding is used to increase the spending on the world Class programme by 15%.

Nevermind I am sure you and your like will continue to entirely misrepresent the actions of UKA in your attempts to discredit it. I doubt that even though it has been clearly stated to Mr Bicourt that the overheads of UK ARE NOT publicly funded but funded by their commercial deals that Mr Bicourt will stick to the facts about that in future discussions or submissions to the DCMS.
Zac  - A reply to Fangio |21-03-2010 01:00
Fangio, thank you for your comment.

It was very late when I wrote what I did. I was disappointed at the tone that Niels de Vos took against John Bicourt, who I know is only seeking clarity in the UK Athletics performance indicators. I hope that you will agree that the "active people survey" published by Sport England is not a plausible guide to the numbers of people participating in athletics. The definition of participation that is used is "moderate intensity for 30 minutes or more at least once in the last week". That might adequately describe someone who claims to be a stamp collector, but for participation in athletics, it is a derisory effort which testifies to a lack of participation. True participation is best measured by adding up the numbers who compete in the county championships each year around the country. Such a measurement would be a valuable tool for the professionals, if they were sincere about raising participation levels and standards.

As regards UKA's value for money at elite level, my fleeting study of the Olympic medals won by British Athletes would suggest some statistical gymnastics on the part of Niels de Vos's figures. Their are others better qualified than me who I hope will give a transparent appraisal of what UKA claim to be a medal tally. I do wonder whether the UKA figures include the gold medal won by Christine Ohorugu at the 2007 World Championships. Clearly UK Athletics cannot claim any credit for this medal. The sad truth is my experience has led me to mistrust UK Athletics. Furthermore, I don't share the fixation on medals as a measurement of standards in British Athletics. I much prefer a year on year analysis of the 1st, 10th and 100th ranked individuals.

I take your point about the 15% UKA contribution that Niels de Vos said went towards the World Class programme. It was clearly a mistake on my part to suggest that he was saying this was the only money UKA contribute to athletics. However I am not convinced that any of the UK Sport/UK Athletics expenditure can be described as value for money.

I was at the original launch of UK Athletics on Friday 28th November 1997. I had great hope for the future of the sport at that time. Many things since have caused me to question the true values of UK Athletics, and the orbiting professionals. The description of the Foster Review as "Independent", and the way that it was implemented, convinced me that UK Athletics was a trojan horse planted by the Sport's Councils as a mechanism to deliver the government's social agenda. I accept that this might have been a well meaning strategy. However the outcome has been counter-productive and negative for athletics on many levels. The inability of UK Athletics to honestly address this failure just adds to the sense that self preservation is the priority in everything they do.

When talking about such broad issues, it is easy to forget about the specific incidents which cause such fury. I remember...
Zac  - A reply to Fangio - Continued... |21-03-2010 01:02
When talking about such broad issues, it is easy to forget about the specific incidents which cause such fury. I remember talking to the International Steeplechaser Adam Bowden at a cross country race in Kingsbury when he was just 15 years old. He told me of his ambitions in the sport which were extremely high. Within a few years he won the English Schools Steeplechase title. Ten years after our conversation he won the 2008 Beijing Olympic Trials. He had achieved the B standard qualifying mark. How dare UK Athletics tell him he cannot go to the Olympic Games because he was not considered to be of a high enough standard to reach the final against the Kenyans and Ethiopians, and not young enough to be considered as an athlete with potential. Athletics is a sport where athletes must select themselves in the trials.

Negative experiences such as this spread around athletics like a wild fire, undermining the sport on many levels. In athletics the elite athletes need servants, not masters. Sadly UK Athletics just don't get it.
fangio  - Reply for Zac |21-03-2010 14:23
Sorry Zac but you are strying form the point and moving the goalposts.

Mr De Vos quite clealry showed the number of medal winners not the number fo medals which is perhaps a clearer indicauion of strength as it takes ou to fhe equation the over relinace on a few persistent medal winners, and more accurately refelcts the of the sport.

I do not see how having peopel specialise in teh elite and grass roots is a systemic fault surely the actions are what they shoudl be judged by,m and grass roots gets more funding and backing (in my personal experience as a club committee member) than they ever did under the previous adminsitration.

He did not however say UKA was isolated from grass roots, that is a misrepresentation again.

On selection some disagree whether rasingint he bar is the right way to go, it has worked in both cyclign and swiming, and the results are yet to be seen with athletics.

I do not see gratitude for Mr Bicourt form many, he almost certainly will have it from the National League clulbs, but the grass roots would suffer more unde the proposals Mr Bicourt has previously made than under any UKA proposals I have seen.

The assertion that county champs are the best indicator of participation is of course misguioded and designed to skew the figures agaisnt UKA. tehre are a great deal more options for competition than the 70's and 80's, including the Inter City challenge for htose athletes sub international standard. So measuring the participation in a single strand of comeptition form a different competitive era vs todays participation is of course misleading.

Having spoken to clubs in netwroks, I think again your statemtn that ALL participating clubs recognise these a as a layer of govt interference is agina misleading, and indeed untrue. I imagine if all you spoke to were a few committee memebrs of ABAC clubs (possibly the ones who subscribed their clubs to ABAC without asking the club whether they wanted to join) you would get a skewed response.

Oh forget it, you can't help but misrepresent things, just like ABAC and ARC.
Runer  - Mr Bicourt |22-03-2010 01:20
I can asure you that many in the sport rather than appreciating Mr Bicourts perserverance think he is an arrogant ****.
Zac  - Repy to Fangio - Part 1 |23-03-2010 15:01
Fangio, Once again you are right. I sensed some jiggery pokery in Niels de Vos's medal statistics, and did not pay them much attention. All the key performance indicators talk about medals, not medallists. Because I simply do not trust UK Athletics I now wonder whether Niels de Vos has included relay runners in his medallist statistics. If so that would be four medallists instead of one medal. In the words of Michael Johnson, "Nobody gets into this sport to become a relay gold medallist". I would be grateful to see a clarification of Niels de Vos's medallist statistics which will hopefully include a comparison with pre 1996.

You say you don't understand why the separation of grass roots from elite can be seen as a systematic fault. The simple reason is that athletes need a seamless pathway from bottom to top. The separation of elite from grass roots necessitates athletes undergoing a traumatic change to their routine at exactly the time when the routine is reaping rewards. The leap from grass roots to elite level results for many athletes in injury and demotivation. The UKA cliches of "couldn't make the transition to elite level", or "the athlete's personal coaches were not prepared to learn", won't do. It is failure in the design of the system.

You say that "raising the bar" has worked for cycling and swimming. I don't know if that is true. Maybe the psychology of dropping players from the team is helpful in the likes of rugby or football where all the players share a similar activity. To expect this same squad psychology to motivate individual athletes is crass. It astonishes me how stupid these people at UK Sport and UK Athletics must be. Have they ever met an athlete? How can anyone believe that telling an athlete who has won the trials that they are not selected, is going to motivate them to come back fitter and stronger in 4 years time. The idea of hoping a pole vaulter will become more determined to make the team, because the hammer thrower has been dropped is ludicrous. If you UKA truly believe this nonsense why not set all the British qualifying standards slightly above the current world record? With brains like that running the sport we should clean up - I don't think so. Lets be honest and admit the reason for the small teams is to mask the dismal failure of UK Sport and UK Athletics.
Zac  - Repy to Fangio - Part 2 |23-03-2010 15:03
You suggest John Bicourt's ideas would not be welcomed by the grass roots. John is well able to argue his own corner, but I would say you must not confuse grass roots athletics with those participants who decline to join a club and have no ambition to improve their level of performance ("I just want to finish"). Good luck to these individuals who are without any athletics ambition, however, they are not part of the athletics pyramid. To count such individuals in participation surveys as Niels de Vos did, represents the manipulation of statistics to justify public money. It is plain dishonest.

Your suggestion that the inter city challenge can be used to measure participation does not stand up. This is a selection match with a fixed number of participants. The reason the County Championships are the best measure of participation in athletics are many. The even geographical spread allows for comparison around the country. Furthermore the profile of the participating athletes is one of ambition and commitment to their sport. They are making the first step towards climbing up the ladder towards national success. To enter a county championships the athlete must fill in a form and send off a cheque. If entries to the county championships are high, heats and finals will be scheduled. If the number of entries is too high, then qualifying standards are introduced. The County Championships represent the best way to measure trends in athletics in terms of participation over all events, in all geographic areas over all age groups. It is so obvious, the only people who would wish to avoid such scrutiny are the professionals seeking to mask the unpalatable truths that would emerge.

As regards the Networks, I go out of my way to talk with people who hold differing views from myself. I spoke to a club chairman who was very active in ensuring that his club was part of the network. When I went through the objectives of the network such as "Overcome barriers to participation", and the emphasis on attending coaching new initiatives rather than attending competitions, he told me "you have to say stuff like that to get the funding". He also assured me he was not stupid, and he knew the money would not be flowing forever. When I asked how he would react if the England Athletics insist the network complies fully with the small print in the terms of the funding, he said "we will tell them to f off".


As regards runer's comment, John Bicourt attended two Olympic Games as an athlete. He has coached world record holders, and is recognised as being one of the pioneering athlete agents which brought the sport into the modern age. I can forgive him a little arrogance, especially when he is taking such a principled stand against well paid individuals at UK Sport and UK Athletics who are failing the sport.
fangio  - Reply to Zac |23-03-2010 17:28
Zac, misrepresntin gme again it seems.

I di dnot say that teh CIty Challenge was a good way of measuring participation, I said the exitence of an entirely different competition structure compared to the past meant that using the County CHampsionhsips would be misleading. You said "It is so obvious, the only people who would wish to avoid such scrutiny are the professionals seeking to mask the unpalatable truths that would emerge." well I ma not one of the professionals I am not under scrutiny but I can see that is the comeptition structure changes then measuring a single strand of theat competiton structrure would not accurately refelct the participation rates. But hey better for you if you ignore or misrepresent that point rather than address it accurately or honestly.

AS for participation figures and manipulation, well I don't see Mr De Vos misrepresnting his participation figures, they are done on the same basis as every other sport, there i sno fudging it's the measure that those who are measuring it wanted. Taht you choose to say you want a different measure is hardly surprising given your hostility to UKA, but he didn't pick how it was being measured.

I did not say that I don't see how shearing the elite form the grass roots is a problem. I said I didn't see why having people specialise in each was a problem, and I pointed out to you that Mr De Vos (and now need to poin t out to you that I ) did not say the two were sheared from each other. You misrepresent both of us again. No surprise there then.

Your idiotic portrayal that the bar shoudl be set at an level that has never been achieved by any human being is of course the sport of point I would expect from you. No one is suggesting that. What is sugegsted is that to compete outdoors at a world level should require a world class standard. I don't see anyone suggesting that a hammer throwing being dropped motivates other events, so where you thought this one up from I do not know.

I can assure you that I am not thinking of non club athetles when I talk about Mr Bicourt's ideas being accepted. I don't speak with non-club members about this sort of thing so I don't know why (except of course you trying discredit my opinion and those of the people I speak with) you would make that assumption.

From my own dealings with Mr Bicourt I could guess at a couple of "principles" that he may have and from his proposals elsewhere they do not appear to have anything to do with securing the future of the grass roots.

So please if you are going to address my points do not continue to misrepresent them please try to honestly answer them instead it makes it so much more informative as a debate compared with making up things I have not said.
slimjim  - mr |23-03-2010 20:09
Fangio. I cannot recall reading so much gobbledegook. Whereas Zac is coherent and logical in his arguments your reposts give the impression of someone suffering from dyslexia with a touch of paranoiah for good measure. You have my sympathy and best wishes for a quick recovery
fangio  - Reply for slimjim |23-03-2010 20:26
Thank you for adding your reply, I am not a very good typist.

As for the logical bit, far from being logical Zac misrepresents my points of view consistently, just as Mr Bicourt does on the forum of which you are all memebers, and on which the abuse of anyone who disagrees with you is both profane and personal.

Maybe you would like to try to address the points I made insterad of just having a go because I can't type. Maybe also you woudl like to declare any links to Mr Bicourt or the NGB so we can see your independence. I have none.
slimjim  - mr |24-03-2010 15:48
I am not sure how my modest contibution moved you to an accusation of issuing profanities. I've heard of lateral thinking but your posts are mainly from a parallel universe. Very strange
fangio  - slimjim |24-03-2010 16:26
I see so you don't understand why your "modest offering" which was basically calling me ill ( I assume mentally) made me think of the forum of whch Mr Bicourt yourself and Zac are memebrs on which it is allowed ofr anyone to abuse with profanities anyone who disagrees with your collecive view.

Let me see, woudl it be because all you came out with in your "modest offering" was insults.

I note that neiher this offering or the last are anything to do with the topic, just an attack on me personally and a shift from discussing how Mr Bocourt and Zac fail to logically address the points made by others preferring instead to misrepresent the views offered.

Go on and explain why misrepresting what has been said is the right way to look at this. Surely if you want to have a go at De Vos (and you do) it's better to criticise things that he actually said, not make up things he didn't say?

As for logical, how is it logical to take one competition strand and base the entire "particiaption rates" on that competition strand. Please explain that one to me. Surely this is just deliberate skewing of the figures by ABAC and it's supporters.

No I don't suppose you will bother answering any points, well not without misrepresenting them or moving the goalposts.
Zac  - Response to Fangio (County Champs) |24-03-2010 19:06
Fangio,

I don't mean to misrepresent what you say. I only intend to paraphrase the point I think you are making in an effort to be clear. The County Championships represent The local centre of gravity where athletes can come together in a meaningful competition to establish who is the county champion on an annual basis. The fact that many athletes don't value this competition opportunity is a testament to the failure at a national level to promote them. It must also be recognised that a significant number of athletes do value the county championships. Whether it is 30%, 60% or 90% of athletes who participate in county championships does not matter. They still represent a consistent year on year measurement of progress or decline in participation levels.

In contrast the Inter City Challenge has enormous financial support from UK Athletics. The reason for this is that public money is not allowed to crowd out voluntary money. Consequently UK Athletics are required by the government to come up with endless new initiatives at the expense of tried and tested old initiatives. I think the Inter City Challenge was a "new idea" of John Ridgeon's. It was hoped that such a competition would be helpful for the profile of the sport by creating a team competition between recognisable population centres. My view is that John Ridgeon was more interested in developing an event which had the potential for larger spectator attendance. Because targeting spectators with a London versus Manchester versus Birmingham type competition was more important to UK Athletics than meeting the needs of the athletes the event has failed to make any meaningful impact.

One reason for its failure is that local athletes from Hertfordshire are required to compete in the Oxford team to help balance the competition. Other athlete from other areas are wedged into teams in the same way. Another failing is the fact that all the teams managers are chosen centrally by UK Athletics. It is essentially a competition which allows UK Athletics to play with themselves using athletes as the pawns.

If they are serious about developing this competition then UK Athletics must fund city championships which allow the athletes to compete for selection. The fact is many athletes do not know why they were selected, and more amusingly they don't know how they came to be associated with the city that they have been asked to represent. It is a good example of the shambles and expensive failure that UK Athletics creates then presides over.
Fangio  - reply for Zac |24-03-2010 23:24
Sorry Zac but I don't buy the declaration of innocence, unfortunately you are a member of a forum which conssitenly misrepresents the views of those it does not like, and you consistently misrepresent my views, it is that consistency whcih makes me doubt your decalartion.

I could not have been clearer, I mentioned the City Challenge as a new strand that did not exist previously.

The only thing that measuring participation at the County Champs measures is particapiton at the County Champs. It is a consistent measure of that only.

To put it up as a measure of participation in the sport in general is I believe disingenouous. As I say there are many different levels of competition that exist now so measuring a single strand does not give an accurate picture. Nothing you have said actually answers that point, although I appreciate that slimjim will probably be on here soon as your cheerleader pretending that it does.

As to the idea that County championships shoudl be promoted Nationally is interesting. I thought the County Associations shoudl do that.

Not sure if it was Ridgeon or Pickering who came up with the intercity, but that is not the point. To me there are 3 clear strands where the new compeition has looked to benfit the sport.

1. Yes they are trying to get audiences, and get people interested in sub elite atheltics. BAL has tried to get coverage and attendances over the years but has not achieved it.
2. Trying to create a level of comeptition sub elite that is more challenging. BAL still has events which are poor in depth, and so can provide littel as a stepping stone for the competitors.
3. New quick format that they are hoping to get schools to use, hoping to get athletics back on the school radar.

On the point about athelts not competing for thier location but one that is nearest, and on ahteltes someties seemingly having very shallow links with teh city they compete for, sorry what's your point. City named teams were chosen I would have thought ot try to attract a geographical following similar to football in the early days. Players in teh early days played for the club at their level which was closest or they had some link to. With eh City Challenge there is prize money, I woudl find it a bit odd if the best atheltes in teh country were unable to compete for this money or in a better field than they can usually get merely because they were not born in one of the cities that comeptes in the competition, so there is some flexibility.

As for the managers, what do you propose as an alternative? Would it be to make the manegers of the big local clubs the managers so that hey can give their own club's athletes access to the event and the comeptition/prze money/development opportunitites it brings?

The idea that an event which athletes can choose not to compete in somehow makes them pawns is interesting, can you please expain that one to me, as it sounds suspiciously like empty rhetoric.
slimjim  - mr |25-03-2010 20:36
Hi Fangio, If you check my wording I said you were "sick" not "ill". There is a subtle difference.
fangio  - Slimjim |25-03-2010 20:58
No you said neither sick otr ill, so why the quote marks? I certainly did nto quote you hence why I said preseumably.

However, why not answer some of the queries instead of just posting up about me all the time? Why divert from the topic so frequently? If you think Zac is logical perhaps explain why his misrepresenting thinsg is logical.

Nope not your style or that of ABAC.
john bicourt  - Is De Vos trying to deceive? |28-03-2010 13:31

Niels De Vos, the CEO of UK Athletics Ltd in his riposte to my previous article, has entirely and perhaps deliberately, missed the point. It is not a question of how much public money is spent by UKA but whether it provides a reasonable and expected return in value to the funding bodies that provide the public money.
Incredibly, given his role as the CEO of UKA, his own figures and assertions, proffered within his defensive attack on my article, are completely inappropriate, highly misleading and clearly designed, it seems, to hide from UKA’s public and commercial funders the true picture of GB’s medals and top 8 placings over the last three Olympic Games and six World Championships.
Niels De Vos has provided figures regarding GB achievements at Olympic and World Championships to ‘prove’ how our teams’ performance under their guidance and support has supposedly improved? He has failed to even recognise there are two World Championships in every Olympic cycle and not one as he states.
Peter Matthews, a world respected athletics statistician, made the following comment on De Vos’s figures – “ Absurd, grossly misleading, not what one would expect of a responsible governing body.” !
De Vos’s misleading figures quoted for GB.’medallists’ during three Olympic cycles, including World Championships are:
• Sydney 2000/Edmonton 2001 – 6
• Athens 2004/Helsinki 2005 – 12
• Beijing 2008/Berlin 2009 – 16
Whereas the correct number of medals won (the only globally recognised count) during the Olympic cycle are in fact:
Seville 1999/Sydney 2000/Edmonton 2001 - 15 Medals
Paris 2003/Athens 2004/Helsinky 2005 - 11Medals
Osaka 2007/Bejing 2008/Berlin 2009 - 15 Medals
So clearly no improvement on a decade earlier when our medallists then, were already established world class performers, without the benefit of UKA’s funding.
For the same cycles he states (re: number of GB athletes in top 8 places)
• Sydney/Edmonton – 33
• Athens/Helsinki – 27
• Beijing/Berlin – 40
Whereas the correct accumulated figures for the same cycle are:
1999/2000/2001 - 51
2003/2004/2005 - 31
2007/2008/2009 - 51
(Nb The correct figures above are verified by two of the top statisticians in the world)
Mr. DeVos’s inappropriate and grossly misleading figures once again falsely shows an improvement whereas the correct figures’ show no improvement at all from a decade earlier. So millions of pounds of public funds have been handed to UKA over the 11 years to stand still!
It should also be noted the ’95/97 unfunded cycle achieved 17 medals and 47 top 8 places.
DeVos, claims GB finished as top ranked European nation in the recent World Indoor Championships, when in fact GB was 2nd European nation behind Russia. This “oversight” conveniently made GB look better than it was and despite finishing 4th overall, (not unexpectedly with the third largest team) DeVos’s, Head Coach, (...
john bicourt |28-03-2010 13:35
ted that it was, “disappointing” and that a number of athletes had not performed as expected - Britain produced only 6 Top 8 individual placings from a team with 23 individual competitors.
The true measure of achievement, however, and the measure for UK Sport’s funding level of UKA, is the World OUTDOOR Championships and the Olympic Games. Little wonder, then, that De Vos would want to make it look as good as possible?
DeVos states that UKA receives £6million per year (public funding via UK Sport) to fund their Olympic programme. Of the “£6million”, DeVos says 25% of that sum is invested to, “ensure we are able to take full British teams to all major track and field championships - not just senior teams but junior teams too” !
This “full teams” claim is entirely false and contrary to UKA’s own stated selection policy. UKA have never taken a full British team to any of the major track and field championships. In fact one of the biggest criticisms of UKA is their incompetence and continuing failure despite having Directors of events, (now Directors of “speed” , endurance” and “jumps”) numerous professional coaches, managed High Performance Centres and, what they claim is the best medical and sport science support system, to produce more qualified athletes for OG’s and WC’s where GB is continually unrepresented in a number of events.
DeVos then curiously breaks down his £6m into separate disciplines and says this equates to just £375,000 per year per discipline, “making athletics, by disciplines amongst the lowest funded of Olympic sports, and the sport offering perhaps the best value for money of all”! . This is farcically irrelevant and not how they actually break the funding down and only suggests his crass misunderstanding of athletics.

What IS highly relevant is the glaring and embarrassing lack of GB representatives in so many Olympic and World Championship events.
De Vos, claims that UK Athletics has a role to provide a strategic insight and direction for the Home Countries National Governing Bodies, yet in the 11 years since its inception, UKA has still not managed to produce a comprehensive strategy for the development of the sport!
Their self lauded Coach Education Programme has continuously failed to be granted the government’s funded Sports Coach UK/ UK Coaching Certificate, being deemed “unfit for purpose.” Now UKA have decided to go their own way and the coaching qualification program is on hold pending the launch a new programme in the Autumn which will sit outside the nationally recognised coaching accreditation process for all NGB’s (UKCC).
The quoted £18m into “grass roots” (but not the clubs) is mainly marketing spend from which Aviva receive a good value return but it is not benefitting the real development of athletics. The stated £18m has produced no measurable growth in the sport at the critical U20 and senior competitive level and there are no published detailed figures to back up what DeVos claims of how th...
john bicourt |28-03-2010 13:37
of how the money is spent and what benefit this has bought.
De Vos’s claims the results of the independent Active People survey (IPSOS Mori) “showed that participation in athletics has risen for the fourth consecutive 6 month period”. However, these figures are mainly centred on people jogging and therefore are nothing to do with UKA, who by their own, self-stated interest, focus on the elite.
DeVos states that UKA “clearly shows excellent value for money” but by what measure? Spending money is NOT a measure of value. Returns might be, but only if they match or exceed the purpose for which the money was provided. In UKA’s case the agreed measure with UK Sport is global event medal targets which continually get revised down and often still get missed.
Despite missing the low, greatly reduced, goal of 5 medals in Beijing, Mr DeVos, was awarded a £28,000 pay increase, this at a time of the greatest recession since the 1930’s.
His acerbic comments on the Association of British Athletics Clubs (which is in fact a fully democratic and unfunded pressure group) is completely wrong and rather hypocritical given that UKA, (Ltd by guarantee) is a body which is not transparent, is self appointed, undemocratic and unaccountable to the sport.
Given his gross misrepresentation on GB’s medals and top 8 placings over three Olympic cycles (have they also been presented to the government’s funding body?) and the poor value return in global achievements for public money invested, I believe that UK Sport should immediately review Mr. De Vos’s position.
JohnBicourt

fangio  - Oh dear Mr Bicoourt |28-03-2010 20:00
usual rubbish from Bicourt.

Instead of saying that Mr De Vos has got his figures wrong, how about asking your statistician friends to actually provide the figures for the stats he provided.

How many medallists were there across each period nto how many many medals were won. Kelly Holmes was a medallist not 2 medallists. If you actually ask them to check the figures for what Mr De Vos quoted not some other measure then you will find his figures are correct.

Mr Matthews may think them absurd, but then again I doubt you woudl have asked Mr Mathews for his comments if he was not a friend of yours.

You say that the figures show that the UK is at a standstill, well, given teh improvements across the developing atheltics nations that's not a bad position to be in, and certainly oe I am sure most historic athletics nations woudl like to be in.

You say "DeVos states that UKA receives £6million per year (public funding via UK Sport) to fund their Olympic programme. Of the “£6million”, DeVos says 25% of that sum is invested to, “ensure we are able to take full British teams to all major track and field championships - not just senior teams but junior teams too” !
This “full teams” claim is entirely false and contrary to UKA’s own stated selection policy."

Well tell me, where does Mr De Vos say they wil take full teams, or did he say that the funding was to be ABLE to send full teams? Oh, right you can't be bothered yet again to read what is actually written and just make up somehting to have a go at. Why is it that we get continuous dishonestly from you John?

Your quote about CVC being "disappointed" is a very selelctive one word quote, and CVC hjas made his position quite clear regarding what he was disapointed about, but his overall impression from the WIC was not one of disappointment. So why quote jus one word? Oh that's right it allows you to misrepresnt the position YET AGAIN.

How about the comments that not hacving someone in every event is a failure. Maybe you could ask the statisticians how many countries were prepresented in more events, how many countries had more events in which someone COULD have been sent (UKA set higher standards than the IAAf standards), how many events woudl we ot have sent atheltes to before if the same higher standards were applied previously to the UK team. It is not a true representataion just to look at the number of events where no one was sent, as well you know Mr Bicourt. To hihglight the situation only one solitary throw by one thrower in the entire history of athletics in this country exceeded the World Champs qualifying distance. 1 throw Mr Bicourt. So how is not magically having someone exceed that distance in the last few years failure?

You claim that the clubs don't get he money into grass roots, they do get some of it, other bits go to other areas. So, what's your point?
john bicourt  - Fangio: |29-03-2010 08:06
Fangio you can't pull the wool over people's eyes with your usual prepared rubbish. Try as you like.

Perhaps, Neils De Vos would like to counter if I've got it so wrong... which I haven't.

Everyone knows that you and your little group of denial experts are on here for one purpose only: to deflect any criticism of UKA (how's your mate from NEB FH or should I say TS?)
fangio  - Mr Bicourt |29-03-2010 13:30
Mr Bicourt

I belong to no group other than my club to do with athletics. I have no political affiliation to UKA, and do not post on anyone's behalf, or by request from anyone. I do not know (to my knowledge) anyone from NEB, and if you are referring to the person who posts as Flyinghurdler on the BBC forum I have never (to my knowledge) spoken to met or communicated with that poster except on the forum.

I do not post to deflect criticism from UKA, I have posted on here as you are deliberately misrepresnting the article by Mr De Vos, and continually misrepresnt the facts to people in power such as the DCMS.

Of course I expect you to continue to lie about me, it is what you do best. I also expect you to continue to post on your pet forum where the abuse by yourself and your supporters is personal and has nothing to do with the issues raised.

By continually misrepresenting anyone you do not agree with it is you who tries to pull the wool over people's eyes, and I suggest that anyone in power who receives a missive from you should first of all check the facts quoted, as they are often incorrect.
slimjim  - mr |30-03-2010 08:04
Its raining so here I am re-reading this lot.

I think the charge against Neils is clear.

He is arguing that since its inception UKA has provided value for money and indeed claims it provided the "best value for money of all sports". To back up this data he has looked at the number of medallists over several Olympic cycles and concluded an improving trend is evident. However he has selected 1 Olympic Games and 1 World Championship from wach Olympic cycle. However there are 2 World Championships in aech cycle. If you include the missing events then the picture is totally differen. NO IMPROVEMENT whatsoever.

So why should Neils be selective to give the results he would like his paymasters to read? Quite simple. He wishes to survive in a world that will become increasingly sceptical of non elected non accountable quangoes.

Unfortunately for him there are people around who will not let these untruths prevail
fangio  - How about answering the points raised |30-03-2010 09:40
Hi John and Slimjim.

As two ABAC committee memebrs I assumed you woudl be up for actually debating the points, and actually providing answers tot eh queries abou the abuse of stats and misrepresentations by Mr Bicourt. however, ssemingly you are not interested int hat, and woudl prefer to make it about completely untrue allegations of me having some link to UKA, or NEB, or some sort fo group. I understnad that, it is hard for your to defend the morally bankrupt misrepresentations of Mr Bicourt, let alone the abuse meted out to anyone who opposes Mr Bicourt's views on your own pet website.

Thank you for confirming my view that you have no interesting an honest debate and are more interested in trying to discredit anyone you don't like by misrepresentation and made up allegations. I trust that anyone in authority reading this will clearly be able to identify Mr Bicourt's unwillingness to address the use of these tactics rather than have an hnest debate.
Confused punter  - Names please |30-03-2010 09:45
Ok - this has all been very interesting but surely a bit of transparency is needed here. Why don't Fangio and Slimjim have the courage to reveal their real identities? If they believe so passionately in their views why are they afraid to make themselves known to the general public?

PS It would be useful if they could employ their spell-checks before posting as well.
fangio  - Confused Poster |30-03-2010 10:57
Sorry I do not wish my family to be subjected to the sprt fo abuse that Mr Bicourt and his preferred forum dish out.

The points are not about who I am, they are about Athletics. There are those I trust, even on the other side of the debate, who know who I am.

If I felt safe to name myself I woudl, however ti really don't think that the postings by Mr Bicourt and others on his favoured forum allow me to feel safe in posting under my real name. The members of that website unfortunately thik that digging into the hobbies, family memebrs and occupations/employers for those who have named themsleves is fair game, and my wife could do without the stress.

So simply put if I thought it woudl not lead to irrelevant personal abuse I woudl give my name, but I know that irrelevant personal abuse is one fo the favoured tactics of Mr Bicourt.

On a aseparate note, how would my identity make it more or less true that Mr Bicourt is misrepresnting people?

Zac  - Feeling threatened |30-03-2010 11:23
Fangio,

I would not align myself with people who would be threatening towards others within the sport. Possibly your own passionate postings look equally threatening from the opposite side.

I realised back in 2004, as I watched George Bunner and Chris Carter undermine the AAA of England from the inside, that they were not bad people. They were naive. They used politics to relentlessly push our sport towards the money offered by government. They dismissed honest democratic processes for what they considered to be the greater good.

I accept the words of everyone in this debate are in good faith with the best of intentions. However we must challenge matters like Niels de Vos's medallist count. Has he counted 4 relay medallists instead of 1 medal? Has he even counted 5th and 6th medallists within the relay teams, when athletes competing in the heats also qualify for medals?

Fangio, if you wish to discuss these matters personally, please feel free to call me on 020 8441 6908, and I will treat our conversations in confidence.

Zac
john bicourt  - Poor sad little fangio! |30-03-2010 20:52
Fabgio, or rather Ross (or your brother) Woodward as you've already previously given your name so what are you bleating on about?

You're like the cry baby bully at school. You get wacked back and you bleat about it. Be a man.

You and your ilk's efforts, including a certain well known figurehead from NEB, to disasemble whatever criticism is laid against this horrendously incompetenbt NGB is not helping them.

You just fuel the fire.

Public money has to be totally accounted for to the penny. I don't care what deceptive people like you say because YOU don't matter.

UKA is clearly getting desperate to rely on the likes of you, and now even DeVos (very misguidely) trys to defend his position with the most incredibly,stupid-beyond- belief, "proof" of how well UKA are doing!

You think the detractors like me (who have an achievement record in this sport that you couldn't even aspire to) have no influence? Don't kid youself. De Vos is very worried.

Moorcroft, Collins, Walker, ZHP, Story and others have all gone. Why? Well figure it out little man?

There is strict liability on public spending and De Vos will be called to account. His devious presentation will do him no favours, believe me.
bully boy bicourt  - The lies continue |31-03-2010 21:19
I have never placed my identity in the public domain, or any supposed link to anyone who has placed their identity int he public domain. Just because you keep trying to post up what you think my identity is, and I keep requesting that you do not discuss my identity that does not mean the same thing. you are simply a bully, who, rather than answer teh queries regarding your continual misrepresntation of others views prefers to make irrelavnt personal attacks in the hope of scaring off any opposition.

I trust that anyone in power reading this thread will be able to note your reluctance to address any criticisms, and note the bullying behaviour which is your common tactic. If they would then care to look at the hatred exhibited to anyone who opposes your views on your pet forum they could get an idea of why it is certainly untrue to say you have the support fo the sport.
john bicourt  - Fangio still in denial |31-03-2010 08:58
Fangio, you need to look in the mirror and you will see a hypocrit.

You attack everyone who dares to criticise this heavilly funded and sponsored NGB.

You have always personally abused and and tried to ridicule and denegrate because that's your remit.

You constantly come in with red herrings and irrelavencies in your attempt to deflect away from the issue and you deliberately misinterpret in order to show fault.

How can you defend De Vos's ludicrous assessment of GB which has no recognised value:

NO official body records "medallists" as he does. It's MEDALS they count not medallists. And the reason he's tried to get away with it is because that daft assessment (that no other body or statistician in the world uses) looks better than the officially recognised one.

De Vos then either ignorantly or deliberately left out one world champs in each cycle that he quotes, again because it makes his figures look better.

His top eight places are competely wrong. And that's not my personal view but that of the top two statisticians in this country. Yet, you people claim they're wrong and question their credibility.

The assertion that the highly respected statistician, Peter Matthews, would say what I quoted he said, was because he's a friend of mine is cretinous..... I've never knowingly met him
and wouldn't even recognise him and have only ever spoken to him once, very briefly, on the telephone over 6 years ago. But hey ho it helps your cause to try and discredit him.

De Vos, again, either ignorantly or deliberately claimed GB as top European nation ignoring the fact that Russia beat us!

Now which part of all this don't you comprehend?

De Vos's assessment (or perhaps his media department's assessment?) make UKA look as though progress has been achieved but unfortunately for him and them, the officially recognised and properly assembled figures do not.

So one can only assume that Mr. DeVos is either deficient and ignorant in his
assessment or has deliberately set out to mislead?
fangio  - Bully boy still no answers |31-03-2010 11:01
mr Bicourt

bye then, stil teh same old allegations. You say I abuse you, where? My criticisms are eviednced inmy posts, yours are merely allegations.

I have poitned out to you clearly that I have NEVER placed my identity into the public domain, yet you continue to bully me and offer no apology or retraction regarding trying to guess at my identity.

I leave this thread knowign that any rational person can see the tactics used by you in this debate, and the tactics of your compatriot Slimjim.

I hope that someone from Inside the Games has a serious think about the honesty of your previous article and the treatment of those who do not agree with you, and similarly that those in power who take your word for it when looking at athletics seriously consider whether your argumetns are sound if you continually offer no defence of them in light of rational criticism of the points you are making.
fangio  - PS |31-03-2010 11:02
I have no doubt that you and your friends will continue to lie about me and attempt to make irrelevant points about my supposed identity, rather than address the points raised.

I trust that peopel will be able to look at this and evaluate your desire for an honest debate.
John Bicourt |31-03-2010 21:16
Fangio,

You just can't see what a hypocrit, disasembler and liar you are.

You have not addressed one point or issue I have raised above but instead claim that it is me who does not answer you!

You and your brother let it be known in a post some considerable time ago that your father (and you named him as Gavin Woodward) was a world record holder in ultra distance and that one of you coached him (!) So you are a complete liar in what you now try to claim is your innocence.

You are well known to become abusive and derogatory to anyone who dares to criticise UKA., which is part of your strategy in trying to deflect from the issues and to discredit the poster.

You're a waste of time and space and I'm sorry that you have nothing of value to add to any argument.

Any fool can see that this NGB is failing to deliver and De Vos's, "absurd and grossly misleading" presentation of GB's supposed success is defended by you regardless of the fact that no other official body or organisation in the world, including the IAAF, the IOC, the BBC and UKA's funders, UK Sport, or statisticians, calculates, sets or recognises KPI's on the basis DeVos dreamed up.

Just give up because you're just digging yourself a bigger hole.

Biggut  - Get your facts right |31-03-2010 20:19
First off I am Biggut, I have identified myself as Ross Woodward. fangio has never given his identity, so please stop with your ridiculous personal attacks, they only show you to be a pathetic bully.

Secondly you are wrong about the measures mentioned by De Vos. According to a document kindly provided by another poster who is far from a UKA supporter, they relate directly to the KPIs laid down for the funding. These are as recorded in the funding agreement for 2005-2009.

As a result since they are delivering against the KPIs laid down as a condition of funding it is fair to say that UKA are delivering value for money as defined by the funding agreement.

The measures for this are not decided by you or any other critic or supporter of UKA they are decided by the body who gives them the money.

Finally as your erstwhile colleagues gloat and pour scorn on AW for some errors on the Janet Simpson obituary, maybe you will be so good as to apologise for getting my recently departed fathers name wrong, It is Cavin Woodward with a C, as a 5 distance world record holder and acknowledged lgend in the world of ultramarathon running he deserves at least as much respect as to name him correctly.
Julie Briggs  - The internet is public |31-03-2010 20:37
I am a bit fed up with the comments on this as it has reduced to a tennis game of insults. In fact it is doubles tennis as there are 4 or 5 of you hurling insults back and forth.
None of you now seem to be answering any of the points raised or making new points, and you would all be better served if you stuck to your point and left out the insults.
You are people who are passionate and have different view points. Simples!
Regarding names and posting on the internet, what you don't appear to have realised is that the internet is available to anyone and everyone and anyone who is capable of posting a comment will be capable of using Google and performing a simple search. If you Google any of your "posting pen names" the results bring most of you up on other forums you post on. People may not have revealed their identities here, but they have revealed them on other websites. Its not difficult to put 2 and 2 together. If you have nothing to hide, why use a pen name? Your point would be better made if you were honest about your identity. The subterfuge only adds to the curiosity and leads one to research who you are and why you have such strong views - and why you are all so damn rude to the others who are merely making their views known.
Grow up.
fangio  - Why be anonymous |01-04-2010 20:06
Julie

I take it that one of the pen names you coudl not find revealign it's own identity was mine, because I have never done soe.

My identity is irrelevant to the validity of my points.

I have always been thoroughly honest that I have absolutely no connection wiht any part of the NGB of this sport or any other sport in this or any other country. I have no remit from anyone. Giving my name would not make that any more or less valid (for example Ross Woodward has no connection with UKA etc but just knowing his name makes no difference to allegations that he does).

I can simply say that my identiy is irrelevant, but I would rather keep it private (as I have done so so far never having revealed it in any public domain to anyone) as there are some very vindictive poepl who post up the names ofpeople's family memebrs, links to their non-athletic other hobbies including the fixtures lists, guesses at employers etc whcih is threatening and obvioulsy done to try to scare peple off from a debate.

If this were not the case I would be happy to reveal my identity, but unfortunately whilst there are such people out there I won't be doing that.

!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."

Web Analytics