SLL, I have no problem with someone proposing an accurate calculation, but that is not what Mr Whittingham or ABAC have put forward. It is a report which either deliberately, or incompetent, deflates the retention of the most recent period. Such figures are a hindrance to reasonable discussion, and a distortion of reality. I think using such figures to criticise UKA is wrong.
It is the persistent errors and distortions by ABAC that merits the ridicule these reports get. You think it rude to point out that the figures they provide are garbage, I think it important to point it out so that people dont rely on their nonsense to support an incorrect view of the sport.
It is true that track and field participation falls after school age, it doesn’t take a genius to understand why this happens logistically, the question of whether the picture is improving is what really matters, so producing comparative figures which are deceptive, by the choice of methodology, does not help the discussion.
You say it is rude, but I see you don’t comment on the fact the methodology is so poor that even a year 11 GCSE pupil targeting a C would be expected to spot the flaws.
Thanks for your response,
What do you think Fangio of The Chairman of the National Council’s criticism of UKA and England Athletics for not even dissing this issue .. Do you think he has a valid point ?
It depends, if he wants discussion on rates, it’s pointless, the ability to generate rates is relatively new, very little can be gleaned from simplistic figures. So no surprise there.
If he wants to look at retention of the mass of athletes, not the elite, it’s not really a fruitful discussion. I say that as uka do not control how clubs decide to work, so what exactly can they achieve on that score? It isn’t something they can actually change to any great extent, so it would just be a talking shop.
I don’t know what he envisages as the actions the ngb should force onto clubs, so I can’t see what he thinks it could achieve.
The time for a grand reckoning has long passed. Surely our politicians will turn their collective spotlights on to the incompetence of Sport England and their protectionist agenda for those who receive bloated grants to support unrealistic KPI’s
Fangio. In response to the latest ABAC Fact File you said in an earlier post “Such figures are a hindrance to reasonable discussion, and a distortion of reality.”
Since when has UKA or EA for that matter, had a debate on anything affecting the performance levels and standards of our sport. It is only via you and your brother that they try to obscure reality. You two must be the best dissemblers ever. Time for the DCMS to examine track and field.
Oh tuck off Bill, pure ad hominem, UKA do nothing at all through me, I have no connection to them
This thread has followed all the others.
1 you post a link to a report
2 I point out why it is useless, with the reasons why
3 you say it’s not useless, but don’t address any actual reasons at all
4 I re explain the deficiencies
5 you deflect to some generic dig at the ngb
6 I point out you are deflecting
7 you lie about me
I know you won’t admit the report you touted is utter garbage, but it is.
I know you won’t stop publishing more utter garbage to attack the ngb.
I know you won’t stop lying and distorting.
But it remains true that the report is still garbage, your reports are no attempt at a genuine discussion, and you are a liar. No doubt you will p post a reply which further deflects from the issue of the report being incompetent nonsense, you have no other options since the facts do not support you.
I agree with you MarkE. And ITS always sad when people are made redundant . I hear that at least 2 EA London staff have now be let go. Whats happened in the Midlands ?
And to me it looks like the Chair of the National Council has tried to raise the Regional Councils and Clubs concerns to our two NGBs. But looks like he has unfortunately mostly failed to convince them of implementing sensible action/strategy. If the National and Regional councils cannot make headway then we should praise any other group that tries to flag up and highlight where the NGB could do better. Sadly there will always be people who cannot stomach even a hint of criticism of the NGB and will be happy to continue with the status quo. “Well Done” to those guys who continue to report the figures and trends of T&F Athletics. As sure as eggs are eggs UKA and EA will never will be transparent and publish the facts.
But SLL the figures are garbage, why congratulate someone for publishing comparisons of 2 periods using different standards? How is that helpful, it’s just bullshit figures, I am prepared to bet a comparison like for like shows an improvement, but it’s unlikely ABAC would publish those figures, it’s just dishonest or incompetent and should not be congratulated.
Seriously, do you not understand that the comparative figures are a distortion?
Fangio, Look at some basic facts. We once had Cup Competitions for men’s and women’s clubs. These no longer exist because there are fewer athletes and fewer clubs. We once had a plethora of officials and coaches. The numbers are now so low that UKA will not admit to the real figures.
Leagues are contracting and there are not enough athletes competing to make most Leagues viable. The sport is in ruins and all were get is your garbage trying to defend the indefensible.
Bill, you started a thread about this specific fact file, it is incompetent or deliberately misleading, can you not stick to the topic and admit that?
I am not defending the indefensible I am pointing out that your fact file is utter garbage.
Are you going to continue to deflect from the topic you started because you refuse to admit that it has been comprehensively shown that the comparative fatigues were compiled using different standards that deflated the later periods? My guess is you will continue to deflect because you are incapable of honesty.