This topic contains 26 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Fangio 5 months, 3 weeks ago.
ABAC has produced yet another “fact file” full of the usual misdirection half truth and blatant lies. In the latest pathetic attempt they have used the spurious reasoning that they are assessing an EA target.
So what is the target. Well EA have set themselves a target of increasing the performance level across all events and disciplines by 1% every year based upon he EA performance index.
So have ABAC analysed that? No of course not. Instead they looked at the Power of 10 Top 100 targets.
Some brief notes as to why this is stupid;
1. Those targets are UK wide not England wide so are not relevant to EA as a performance measure
2. Those are the targets, and do not actually measure the achievements. For example if only 5 people reach a 100 target of 11 seconds on the 100m one year so the target is lowered to 11.5 seconds, but 20 reach the 11 second target the next year has the performance increased, yes, but the ABAC expert analysis would only note the target was lowered.
3. The to 100 targets are represented as being the performance targets, they were always aspirational, they are not a measure by which ngb performance is formally assessed and never have been.
4. The report makes absolutely no attempt whatsoever to assess the measure (the performance index) against which EA are measuring their objective, or their claim of previous success.
5. The report makes to attempt to analyse whether the increasing or decreasing of targets for Power of 10 top 100 has been against a backdrop of increased or decreased actual performance levels.
In fact the report is just someone using an EA self set target to bitch about the arbitrary, non-kpi, target for UKA going up or down. It doesn’t provide a single thing of value to anyone, just dresses up irrelevant numbers as a reason to whine. Utterly pathetic.
Fangio, More rubbish from you. The England Athletics request for funding includes the statement that Performance Standards will rise by 1% year on year. All this Fact File shows is that in the last 2 years many Performance Targets have been reduced thus making the new claim easier to meet. Let the punters read it for themselves.
No one of your fact file discusses the percentage. It’s all irrelevant to the actual measure hence he’s right it is utter bollocks.
Lowering the standard at the start of the measuring has ZERO impact on the measure of increase in those achieving it in the future. How are you incapable of understanding this? Lowering of the P10 target also does not mean that performance actually dropped, there may have been more people achieve the original figure anyway, but you don’t discuss this you just make non sequitur statements because you are either deliberately being deceitful or are as thick as shit. Take your pick which one.
The increase will be measured year on year IN THE FUTURE, past alterations have no impact. In addition do you have any indication that the increase will not be measured against a fixed standard from the start of the period, of course not. You are just making up bullshit as per usual.
Utter bullshit the Power of 10 top 100 target is not the performance measure used for EA, so it is not making a performance target easier to meet whatsoever.
Furthermore the Power of 10 top 100 “target” is not a Performance target for any part of athletics, it is a notional target used to motivate individual athletes.
In addition did your pet disgruntled statistician provide you with any performance data to go with those targets? Let’s see, 4 events where the notional top 100 targets were reduced twice in 2 years, in all 4 more athletes achieved the 2013 higher target in 2016 than in 2013, or the following 2 years, whether it be UK wide or England only. So the tool seems to have increased performance at that level.
So the fact file talks about a target for the top 100 in the whole of the UK which is in no way a target for funding, and does so whilst talking about EA only, and ignores the fact that performances increased. Utter fucking nonsense from your piss poor bunch of whingers.
Come on Bill show me how the Power of 10 top 100 notional target is in any way related to the EA target you tried to link it to. Oh you cant, pathetic Bill.
Thanks Fangio for starting this thread and drawing everyone’s attention that a new ABAC Fact File had been published. I have now read it and thought the main thrust raised an interesting point. Yes, it may be somewhat bias and written to suggest the NGB are being sneaky. And Yes you are correct that Pof10 is the total for UK and not just England. So I can better understand your points and defence of the NGB can you say where I can read the detail of England Athletes own specific performance measurement targets ,by event ,that you refer to in a couple of your posts ?
So Fangio, SLL has spotted that the latest England Athletics performance targets are nowhere to be seen. Some time ago after an FOI request I did get the 2012-2016 funding proposal but even in that earlier submission the actual targets against which progress was to be measured were redacted. Not given. Nowhere to be seen. But the 2012 – 2016 application did say that targets for that four year period would rise by 2& per annum. Was that achieved? I think not. This latest target is 1% per annum improvement.
you are paid employee of England Athletics.
So put us out of our misery. As you have the targets (presumably from your mates in England Athletics) do share them with us. And let us have the 2012 -2016 targets while you are at it.
Should be 2%
What is really laughable is the way England Athletics two stooges, the Woodward brothers, aka fangio and piaa, must have smoke spouting out of the their ears when they spit and rage over anything that might be damning to their masters, who no doubt write most of the stuff for them, anyway. Curious they seem to have knowledge of information that is not publicly available to the sport because EA doesn’t release it. They do not publish it and in fact even through FOI requests to Sport England to provide EA’s funding request, which they obviously base on the number of athletes attaining set standards and achievements, 90% is redacted. Why? Because EA and Sport England both know thses figures can be easily checked. Which leads one to the obvious conclusion that there’s a fiddle going on and Sport England are complicit in what might only be called fraud in order to gain maximum lottery funding………..So, we can only assume that the two Woodward chumps are being fed (other redacted) information by EA to try and counter any criticism or stats that question their very existence……..Well, we know how those two “paragons of truth and virtue” have operated all along. The two misrepresentation. Keep going girls, you only bring more light to the what’s really going on.
SLL if you want the EA measures ask them for it, despite the continual lies by Bill and others I have absolutely no link, and have never had a link to EA or any other part of the NGB beyond being an e-mail-athlete in England. The fact is they try to attack the person not the points.
That we don’t have the Performance Index easily available does not mean ABAC making out that Power of 10 is the performance criteria is defensible, it is not and never has been the KPI.
Bill for yet another time, I don’t have “mates at EA” you are a fucking liar.
John, go on point out a lie here, just saying I am lying isn’t enough, I have clearly shown where the ABAC report is utterly deficient and you combat it with bullocks about me and just accusing me of lying. I have been fed nothing by anyone, you too could see the ABAC report is garbage if you were interested in the truth, but you aren’t, you just applaud absolutely anything anti ngb.
Also without lying g or attacking the individual, have you actually got anything you aren’t just making up off the top of you head? No, so duck off until you have.
More to laugh at from woodentop woodward….”if you want the EA measures ask them for it” ! Oh, you can ask, but you won’t get.
And how rich to hypocritically claim, ‘attacking the person not the points raised’ which has always been your modus operendi …The fact of the matter, regardless of your personal attacks against those who have done more good for the sport in a month than you have in your entire life, is that whichever way you want to interpret and whatever way you want to selectively skew and misrepresent what is being presented, EA and UKA are not fit for purpose given the vast £millions they have been handed (and wasted) to develop the sport…………..Ignorant, bigoted people like you and your brother do nothing of any use that could help the sport. EA/UKA stooges like you two are only there to barrack and lie at the those trying to bring attention to the what is actually happening in the sport as opposed to the expensive and fraudulent hype put out by your master…………..But never fear, what you say is of no relevance. The Lottery Body has a fraud department and believe me they will be investigating the massively exaggerated claims made by England Athletics and their masters, UK Athletics together with the complicity of UK Sport and Sport England, to enable continued funding levels for the sport……… So sit back and wait for what happens and then maybe you can challenge their findings,too, ho,ho.
So that’s no, you can’t point out a single lie posted by me, and have nothing to say that makes the ABAC report relevant. Go check my original post John, no personal attacks whatsoever, the on comes Bill and oh suddenly it’s about me. You come on more of the same.
The pathetic thing is you seem to think what people did entitles them to lie about others. Luckily you are a dying breed.
Do you actually have anything I lied about John, thought not. Do you have anything that makes a report about the nonKPI P10 100 fogure relevant, thought not. All you have offered is attack absolutely nothing of any substance at all.
Fuck off John, allyou offer is lies and abuse, touce not actually challenge any of the perfectly valid points just resorted to lying as per usual.
It’s Ben explained why the fact file contains nothing of relevance to measuring any performance of those achieving a target. You don’t need to know what the target time or distance is for this to remain true.
But tell you what just lie as usual.
Just seen the usual woodentops Woodward brothers, reply……all those two twats can come up with (just seeking attention,really…so their lives must be very bereft of anything meaningful!) is to say “fuck off” ….Now I know you don’t like it ‘girls’ when you’re exposed as nothing but stooges to protect your little stipend and your masters feeding you all the shit they want you to post, but your jumping up and down and stamping your feet and getting all red in the face about how correct you are and how much a “lie” the latest BAC Fact File is, means nothing, as I’ve already pointed out to you two knobheads. Nothing you say makes any difference to the fact that EA/UKA are committing fraud to gain maximum funding and with the complicity of the government’s two quangoes, UK Sport and Sport England. And like I said previousy, wait ’till the fraud investigation by the Big Lottery comes back with it’s findings, then you two useless twats can can scream and rage all you like because it won’t make any difference to what they find………So be good little “girls” drink your coco, read your AW and dream of one day being invited as a guest to a UKA meeting; ha,ha.
John I’m saying fuck off to your lies about me. I think that’s a more than suitable reply to your continued personal bullshit.
Now perhaps you’d like to actually address the points made rather than the usual.
If you had any valid points you wouldn’t need to constantly make up lies about me, you’ve been doing it over a decade now.
• Utter bullshit…… Utter fucking nonsense from your piss poor bunch of whingers.
And Breath…timeout….Lets all count to 10.
FANGIO……..I am sorry but your original and subsequent posts gave me impression that you definitely knew that the FF was wrong BECAUSE you knew specifically what EA were in fact using. My apologies if my interpretation of your posts was wrong. But if you truly have no idea what EA are going to use; and that EA refuse to publish what they are going to use….. is it any wonder that NGB are going to face some criticism ?